That $60K in 2004 is closer to $80K today. He also tricked it out with Spinners, light bar, flame paintjob, leather seats, three zone climate control, and who knows what else. His $60K base model was probably closer to at least $75K even in 2004. That’d be almost $100K today. Factor in insurance, gas (while cheaper, 11MPG adds up fast especially with AC), and the constant detailing from A1A Car wash he probably puts into it and it’s certainly a legitimate question to ask.
I can’t remember if it was mentioned in “Pimento” but how did doofus manage to set up a meeting with Nacho and recruit 3 trained but legally flexible bodyguards in the first place?
Craigslist? It wasn’t mentioned though, because it doesn’t matter. And “trained” is a strong word - of course we know Mike’s an ex-cop, but the other two guys were just guys with guns.
ETA: We also know Mike found out about the gig through the “underworld-connected” vet, so if you have a strong need to know just assume he arranged the others as well.
I was waiting for Talking Saul afterwards, but learned it was only planned for the 1st episode of the season and the finale.
How dare you refer to Trevor from GTA V as just a guy with guns?! Loved that casting choice! 
I know, right?
I never would expect it to do as well as ‘Breaking Bad’, of course, because most of it’s viewers are familiar with ‘BB’ and some potential newbie’s might not watch because they didn’t watch the previous series.
Anyone have any idea if a lot of people are watching this season?
Jimmy’s brother is a dick.
Chris mentioned that, but very quickly.
Pretty much everything they said in Talking Saul that didn’t, specifically, deal with that episode was covered in the podcast (Better Call Saul Insider Podcast) and in more detail. For example, the story of Bob losing his voice and him and Rhea shacking up for a while was much better told there than it was here. Here, where it’s live, they really only have a few seconds. In the podcast they can ramble as long as they want an then they edit things out or just let us download hour and a half long podcasts. If you haven’t listened to it, I’d recommend it.
BTW, if IRL Bob and Rhea end up as a couple, you can really see something between them since the show started (at least on the podcasts).
The Hummer was only part of what aroused the cops’ suspicion. The hiding place behind the sofa was, possibly, even more dubious–it had to be explained.
Just as well. I enjoyed the Talking Saul episode, but couldn’t get over the weirdness of the false equivalency it seemed to set up between Better Call Saul and The Walking Dead. (I don’t mean to insult fans of TWD, but the writing for that show shouldn’t even be mentioned in the same breath as the writing for BCS.)
I think this episode was one of the most interesting and entertaining episodes of them all.
I wonder if it is reasonable to suggest that maybe the show runner(s) have learned some lessons since last year and are now creating a better show as a result?
Specifically, I’m thinking about Jonathon Banks’ role in the first episode. It seemed to me like they were creating a plot line that could last the entire season and it felt very unfulfilling after the first episode. But they closed that out very nicely in Episode 2 and if they keep up that pace, this will likely be a great season.
Of course that is just my opinion. But I really enjoyed Episode 2 and I’m very much looking forward to Jimmy having some romance this season. That seemed to be the message regarding Rhea Seehorn and if that is the case, it will be another good plot line for this season.
I’m very pleased with this season so far. IMHO, it’s looking to be a most excellent show this season.
I suppose the owner could claim it was stolen. But, if that shop does a brisk business in used car parts, wouldn’t they make significantly more money by chopping up the Hummer and selling the parts? I really don’t know enough about that business to offer a knowledgeable opinion. But making a false insurance claim seems like it would be a large factor. Wouldn’t it? I would think it would have to be worth a considerable amount of money to avoid making a false claim. Wouldn’t it?
Only because they assume something bigger is going on. It’s not illegal to have a hiding spot in your house. Honestly, I figured that Jimmy was just going to say something like “Pryce’s ex-girlfriend was a bit of a nosy Nancy so he kept a few things in there that he didn’t want her to find…” and go down that route.
The other way I saw it going was to not mention it and wait for them to bring it up, when they did, he could accuse them of searching the house without a warrant*, but, as I said before, that seems like a Saul thing to do and I don’t think Jimmy is there yet.
*I understand he invited the officers into the house. If they went in that direction, that scene would probably have to be written differently. Also, I don’t know how it works WRT the officers pulling the couch away from the wall and removing part of the baseboard. That might be going overboard when the homeowner/victim/“victim” thinks they’re just standing there.
What what!? Did not make that connection when I watched it but it sure is him. He actually looks like the game character too (or rather, the game character was made more or less in his image). Very cool.
Heh, the first time i saw that episode I didn’t recognize him, either. But I did a pre-2nd season rewatch and his face and mannerisms just clicked and I instantly recognized him completely spontaneously, then just about died laughing.
My first reaction to that whole thing was: How stupid, that doesn’t even sound real. I mean, it’s funny, kind of, but surely the cops won’t be fooled by that. Why not use an actual fetish in that scene?
Then I googled “pie sitting video”. Because, of course, I had to.
…
That’s all I’m saying. One tip, though: You might not want to google it at work. Also: I’m not sure if what I found was actually meant to be titillating, or if there’s some bizarre joke there that I’m not getting, but I don’t have enough brain bleach in the house to safely investigate it further. Either way, humans are f-ing weird.
Jimmy’s real error?
Not having Pryce write out the ‘cobbler’ story on a yellow legal pad and sign it.
Would have rendered Jimmy bullet-proof if Pryce broke-down later under interrogation; total deniability for Jimmy if he does this.
Major mistake.
Huh? They actually made the video.
So?
He has Pryce sketch out the story… then turn the dork loose with the camcorder.
Instant deniability.
More:
It’s not the fact that they made the tape that makes this creating evidence… it’s the fact that there never were the tapes he described to the police; they do not exist.
If the tapes did exist, they could reasonably say it was made as a demo per the detective’s request.
Recall: the detective said he’d like to see this.