Better Call Saul - Season Three Discussion

Yes. That rings a bell. I think that's how it works.

And I'm sure, like many awards - e.g., the Heisman Trophy - it can depend a lot on who the "team" pushes for the award.

 

It's still not resonating. It was handled brilliantly imo.

 

In all episodes, Chuck's condition was represented by him squinting, clenching up, grimacing, combined with the camera taking odd angles and a dark or high contrast filter added, sometimes with flashing or odd lights and buzzing or piercing sound effects. This does short shrift to McKean's acting ability and to the audience's interest in having more insight into Chuck. Each time this happens, it's a huge opportunity missed. Compared to other shows or films where a character suffers episodes of depression, psychotic breaks, trauma or senility (in the case of Uncle Junior in Sopranos, for example), the actor was given the opportunity to connect with the audience in far more meaningful and insightful ways that in several cases did earn emmys.

Fans of McKean may want this poster, by the way. Only one signed copy remaining as of when I'm posting this.

MICHAEL McKEAN - Better Call Saul AUTOGRAPH Signed 8x10 Photo at Amazon's Entertainment Collectibles Store

 

Sometimes I wish the site had a dislike button.

 

Me too.

Or at least lack of substance button.

Say what you will but I explain my opinions and those of you who like seeing the screen go berzerk and the buzzing instead of seeing McKean just act have yet to explain why. I'm assuming it's just blind allegiance to Gilligan, but could be wrong.

 

@GregM is a dude I'm certain I would love to listen to music with, but never watch a TV show or movie with.

And that's fine! Greg, I love your posts, even though we rarely agree. It's what makes a forum fun.

I don't think this is some sort of allegiance to Gilligan, though. At least not for me. I enjoy the stylized look and feel to his shows, but it could be Larry David as the showrunner and I wouldn't care. If it was Gilligan I would have watched that cop show, or whatever it was, that he had on TV for awhile. It looked lame, though.

Say, have you ever seen Preacher? I'd venture to say that you'd hate it, but maybe not.

 

I don't remember that happening during the hearing. In any event, I should revisit the entire season. I'm not as offended or disappointed by the representation of Chuck's condition.

 

Haven't seen Preacher. I am horrified by most of what I see on TV. Especially the news!

I think most people use TV as a way to "turn off your mind relax and float downstream" to quote a song everyone knows...and so questioning how shows are produced is antithetic to that. But I can't help it. Thanks for the kind words. I genuinely don't mean to rain on anyone's parade who likes this but it seems so evident to me that it's an opportunity missed and could be done a lot better.

 

I don't think there's a single person in this thread who has disagreed with your (mostly lone) criticisms of the "stylization" on the show who comes across to me as having "blind allegiance to Gilligan." I think most people here probably just like two things he's been involved with (obviously BB and BCS), and I don't sense any fanboy fanaticism around Gilligan. I certainly rarely even think about the fact that these two shows are Gilligan shows.

You do explain your opinions, and that is always appreciated. It's kind of the same set of criticisms over and over and over, but it is explained.

But I also think it's unfair to suggest that those who disagree with your criticisms (meaning pretty much everyone else in the thread and most critics and reviews I've read) are doing so out of "blind allegiance" to Gilligan. I also think it's unfair to suggest that those who disagree with your criticisms therefore must "like seeing the screen go berserk and the buzzing." I think your description is hyperbolic in its scope, and I also think some folks probably disagree with you because they're rather *ambivalent* about the stylized Chuck scenes rather than actively "liking" them.

You seem to feel these "stylizations" out and out *ruin* the show for you. There may be a few other folks who aren't big fans of it, but still disagree with the zeal with which you lodge the criticisms, and disagree that it significantly impacts the show.

As far as the "stylization", and specifically concerning the Chuck character, if there was any significant amount of criticism from other viewers or critics also raising the issue, perhaps it would give me more pause. But there just isn't much. I can't say I scoured the internet for dozens of reviews of each and every episode, but I've pretty much *never* read anyone else lodging the "stylization" complaints you make about both "Better Call Saul" and "Breaking Bad", and I certainly don't think your particular criticism is something that weighed on the minds of voters when it comes to McKean and a potential Emmy.

 

There are certainly plenty of people who "turn off their brains" and watch dumb TV. I really don't think that applies so much to "Better Call Saul", and certainly not to the people in this thread.

There are plenty of analytical folks here in this thread and elsewhere who simply disagree with your criticisms of the show. They don't feel it's an opportunity missed. I think the show is brilliant and about as close to perfect as TV gets.

I think you're just applying a very unique, personal filter to your viewing experience that isn't translating well to most other viewers or critics, including those who are analytical and detail-oriented.

 

It isn't your opinions about the show but the persistent implications that anyone who disagrees with you is blindly marching in a parade (upon which your insightful genius rains) or a Gillian apologist or one who merely enjoys watching badly produced shows. "Hey, if you like watching this crap that's up to you, but if you want to know how quality TV shows are made . . ." That is an exaggeration, of course, but it isn't far from the condescending tone you often adopt.

 

Someone has to show GregM the FX show "Legion." But I think his head would explode. It's arguably *nothing but* stylization.

 

I think this is a huge exaggeration. There are plenty of quiet, slow scenes with Chuck talking to others. He's *always* dealing with his "condition", so there are plenty of "non-stylized" moments.

And, as has already been hashed out in numerous previous posts in the thread, I don't think the stylized bits are problematic at all. They're not my absolute favorite part of the show, but they're fine and convey well what they're meant to. "In universe" so to speak as this show goes, those sounds and lights are supposed to be an interpretation of what Chuck sees/hears/feels, etc.

And *every* instance where that stylization is used is *very brief*, usually clocking in at well under one minute. It's not like half of every episode is some sort of acid trip hallucination or something.

 

Man, I love Jonathan Banks (Frank McPike!!!). But THIS SEASON? All he did was drive around and slow burn. Versus Mike McKean. He was robbed. Bigly.

 

Fair enough. I think I've been more nuanced than saying these scenes ruin the show or that anyone is crazy for liking it. And it is totally abstract to claim that Gilligan could have been more successful and made better use of McKean and the entire psychosomatic dynamic by trying to portray it in a different way. It's basically a theory that is an extension of the writing rule: avoid clichés. Most of my jobs have involved writing in some capacity or another, and writing is not something that came naturally to me. So I tend to rely on cliché's a lot. And in all cases, the rule holds true. When I identify I cliché I'm using, and force myself to think through what I'm really trying to say so that I have more clarity in my own mind, the written end result is much stronger every time.

The way Chuck's mental condition was handled was the production equivalent of a cliché. It should have been thought through and the writers forced to convey what the show needed to tell the audience more substantively. But since that didn't happen, there is no way to demonstrate that end result is stronger. Ok, nuff said.

Never seen it! The irony is that I like 300 and the sequel, which are nothing but stylization.

 

You're wrong. It did happen. What didn't happen is that you weren't personally consulted before scripts were written and decisions were made.

Just because a person doesn't reach the same conclusions as yourself does not mean they failed to think things through before they came to their own conclusions.

 

Banks wasn't even in the season's final episode, much to my displeasure. I hope they give him more to do next year.

 

That's really messed up.
McKean was amazing.
he was better than both of them, in my opinion.

 

Me, too. BUT! - if you think about how they left Mike in the penultimate episode - signing papers for Gus and Lydia - and then the look on his face as he was doing it, I think it held a certain amount of weight. I mean, just think about what that moment meant.

It wasn't as dramatic, as let's say Walter White parked outside of Pinkman's house while talking to Gretchen on the phone - where he had his last chance to either take the money or cook - yet it was still a very pivotal moment for Mike.

I can see why they left it like that, because what else would Mike have done in the last episode? His thread for the whole season was tied up in that moment, with a few strokes of a pen.

 

I didn't realize I actually want to be consulted on a hit show--most people who make a handful of criticisms are taken in the spirit that's intended.

Can't agree there...Odenkirk is the ultimate talent of this show and I'm in constant awe of his acting and dialog ability. McKean overacts in comparison, but that was part of his character. It's rare to find an actor like Odenkirk that is so complementary to a role. I was rewatching Entourage and saw Odenkirk as the attorney for Mark Cuban during the arc where Turtle is pitching investors for Avion tequila. He played a more subdued or straightlaced character, but clearly the HBO folks knew that Odenkirk with his gruff voice and ability to convey he was pushing a deal could really pass mustard as an attorney. When first watching Entourage I didn't know Odenkirk, and thought he really might have been Cuban's legal counsel doing a cameo for the show along with his boss. He's just very convincing. I'm not taking away from McKean or Banks, but Odenkirk outshines them--maybe he doesn't have their range but what he does for the show in his leading role he does better than them in their supporting roles.

 

"pass mustard"?

 

Pass mustard gas.

 

Yeah, I saw a dog pass mustard once. It was not a pretty sight.

C'mon, y'all; quit being so hard on Greg. You'll knew what he meant. We all make typos.

Hey, the final season of The Strain starts this Sunday. If y'all want a show to really pick nits on, watch that one. It's not quite as bad as TWD, but it gets it's due for the popcorn experience.

 

The guy who should have been nominated was Michael Mando.

 

I'd say the desire to be personally consulted would have been far more reasonable than your claimed ability to read minds.