"Better Call Saul" - pre season and Season One Discussion

You keep wanting to insert Chuck into the equation as an argument against Jimmy's natural tendencies. The 'perception' of Jimmy is not only derived through Chuck's comments, but also through Jimmy's own actions as seen in his own flashbacks and in deeds performed in the present. We're going around in circles.

 

You seem to have a knack for conflating concepts. Whether or not HHM would be a good fit for him does not have anything to do with his skill as an attorney.

 

I'm merely suggesting that they perhaps are not just Jimmy's "natural tendencies". And I can't believe you would dare term it in that manner at the same time you claim that judging people on their worst moments is "deplorable", done by persons with no "perspective and empathy". Circles indeed.

 

It won't matter how many times you say it - you'll still be wrong (but I suppose you're really just letting Chuck do the talking again).

The Sandpiper saga shows that Jimmy is indeed a good lawyer (especially the bathroom incident).

 

By the way, @Deesky - my apologies for attributing @minerwerks words to you. With the two of you (and @wavethatflag ) all sounding like Chuck I started to think you were all the same person.

 

That's okay, I guess a multiplicity of people don't agree with you!

 

I see your point, but that was the arc of the ten-episode series: he starts out as Slippin' Jimmy Redux in Albuquerque; makes an earnest attempt to go straight by adopting the elder law practice; happens upon a huge class action case through honest footwork; then is betrayed (in a pitifully deceitful way) by the person he most looked up to and wanted to impress. Which would be devastating for anybody.

Do you really believe that Jimmy would not -- could not -- have been set on a very different path had Chuck not done what he did? That he was not capable of playing it straight?

I guess that is the question of the show: you either think that Chuck was right ("people don't change"), or that Jimmy was terribly wronged. I happen to believe the latter. I'm surprised there are so many Chucks on this thread.

 

It's not about Chuck!

 

I think Chuck and Jimmy are both right and both wrong. This show is fighting up against clean cut statements like "people don't change." Just because Chuck said Jimmy would never be a good lawyer doesn't mean people aren't capable of changing. Just because I think some of the other things Chuck said may be valid doesn't mean I like the guy or think he was justified. Truth is truth, though.

Do I believe that Jimmy could not be set on a different path? Sure, under the right circumstances, I think Jimmy could go legit. Jimmy thought he wanted to change, but deep down I don't think he did. If he had been given the opportunity to have a job at HHM at any point, I think he eventually would have grown tired of it because it would not give him an outlet for his skills.

 

I like this. I almost view "Slippin' Jimmy" as a recovering alcoholic -- the tug of the past is always there, but one can stay on the healthier path if the strength, determination, reinforcement, and support is there.

Yes, we are all responsible for our own actions, but Jimmy was at that fragile point of recovery -- he invested a lot in Chuck's belief in and support of him.

When Chuck essentially said, "You will never change" to Jimmy, Jimmy basically asked himself, "What the hell am I doing this for?"

And, I stated previously, he then dipped back into his old life and revisited the only person who probably looked up to and admired him -- Marco.

Once Marco dies and he's back in New Mexico, his statement to Mike is: "Nice guys finish last, I know what I really am -- Slippin' Jimmy -- and now I'm going focus my energies on being the 'best' version of Slippin' Jimmy."

I believe Jimmy could indeed have changed -- but he lost his will to change.

 

OK, but you must realize that you are repeating his words almost verbatim, right?

 

This is precisely the beauty of Gillian et al's writing. . . we so want to believe in Jimmy, to be so mad at yet understanding of Chuck. . . . We cheer for Mike and we cheered for Walt and Jesse. . . . These are more than flawed people, but the writing has us caring for them, seeing some of ourselves in them perhaps.

Damned good TV.

 

I completely agree. In the real world there are no absolutes, and Gilligan et al. have hit that balance correctly. I also agree that Jimmy is like an alcoholic in the sense that he has a behavior problem, and if he doesn't keep it in check, he falls back to Slippin' Jimmy. Chuck plays are part in this, as does everything else in Jimmy's world. But, you're absolutely right: Gilligan has us rooting for a flawed character (just like Walter White), who most of us can identify very easily with. We want what's best for Jimmy, and some things will work out well, but as long as he's Slippnin', he'll fall. It does make for great TV.

 

I'm guessing more do than don't, except about Chuck's "illness" - which is strange, as we've been shown it is indeed a scam.

 

You keep referring to Chuck's illness as a "scam." He's mentally ill. Just because he isn't actually physically affected by electricity doesn't mean he's consciously faking the whole thing.

 

"It worked because I believed it" makes sense in a short term kind of thing, but what did Chuck want so badly that he would have had to brainwash himself to believe he was sick for upwards of a year?

 

Why did Chuck want to keep Jimmy down so badly that he had to scam him for so many years?

I unfortunately can not tell you the origin of Chuck's "illness", since it has not been revealed at this point in time.

 

This is an interesting post. I am an attorney and have seen attorneys like Chuck and attorneys like Jimmy in my career. The attorneys like Chuck are the mainstream attorneys in larger firms. They spend a lot of time examining large amounts of documents in great detail, analyzing them and applying their thorough legal research and analysis to what they find in the voluminous set of documents. They take a lot of depositions if they are litigators, developing the facts of the case prior to trial through painstaking examinations under oath of potential witnesses. They rarely if ever go to trial, and do not feel comfortable in trial. Some of them are skilled at developing business, some are not.

Attorneys like Jimmy are the flamboyant trial attorneys. Some larger firms have one, or a few, of these in their ranks. They are brought out to actually try the cases. The rest of the time they exist in a somewhat uneasy situation within the firm. They tend to not fit in very well to the rather quiet, staid atmosphere, and the need to fill out detailed timeslips (documenting all of their time), for the hourly charges to clients, and other administrative documents, in a conscientious way. Some of them are able to adjust well enough to fit in, although they are often known as the maverick, the oddball, the colorful person, within the firm.

Most attorneys like Jimmy are the plaintiff's attorneys in personal injury and medical malpractice cases. They are solo practitioners or in small firms. They handle cases on a contingent fee basis, not charging their clients as the case goes along, and then taking a percentage of any recovery. No recovery, no fee. They are skilled in the courtroom, and like the cost conscious nature of the plaintiff's practice, which makes reading a lot of documents or other painstaking discovery work not as important, or financially feasible. That fits in well with their natural inclination not to do that kind of work. Some of them are very bright and can write well, and research the law as well as the quieter attorneys in the larger firms. Some of them are extremely skilled as attorneys. Some of them are more fly-by-the-seat of the pants and hope for a good result despite the lack of incredibly thorough preparation.

It is two different mindsets. There are good and bad attorneys of each type. The Chuck type attorneys respect the Jimmy type attorneys who are ethical, skilled and have ability in research and writing. But the Chuck type attorneys tend to suspect that the Jimmy type attorneys are not as good as the Chuck type attorneys. That part of the show is very realistic.

 

Not sure what the writers have in mind with CHuck, but in real life someone with this disorder doesn't "brainwash himself into it" - it probably starts with some smaller issues centered around electricity or magnetism and then slowly grows into a full blown phobia. NOTE: I'm not a medical professional

 

I think what they are saying is that if what *I* said were true that would be the case.

 

Huh? It certainly isn't a scam, he has a mental illness. This aspect has already been examined in great detail in this thread before. Go back some pages and read the analysis. Chuck is not faking his symptoms (even though EM sensitivity is not a real disease).

 

I've read the analysis. I don't know that it's necessarily relevant. Maybe it's Munchausen syndrome. As I said before, we still don't know the origin.

It's certainly closer to a scam than it is to an actual mental illness like schizophrenia.

 

The origin is irrelevant to the fact that he has a mental illness. It's like arguing that someone doesn't have a broken leg because we don't know the origin of the break. Not irrelevant.

NO, IT IS NOT!

If you've actually read the previous detailed analysis of his mental illness, including the comments made by a person that actually works in the field and you still don't find it relevant, than I can't help you!

 

You keep taking about that "analysis" as if that meant anything - which it really doesn't since we do not have all the information on which to base that "analysis". This is why your "broken leg" comparison is also irrelevant, unless your claim is that if Chuck "believed" he had a broken leg it would actually become broken.

Here's some "analysis" for you:

Munchausen's syndrome is a psychological and behavioural condition where someone pretends to be ill or induces symptoms of illness in themselves.

It is also sometimes known as factitious disorder.

People with the condition intentionally produce or pretend to have physical or psychological symptoms of illness.

Their main intention is to assume the "sick role" to have people care for them and be the centre of attention.

 

Alright .....cyber fisticuffs!
And who will get the LAST WORD IN of the previous 2 posters?
Or will they duke it out indefinitely?