Rockstar does that with their characters often, they tend to be greatly influenced by their voice actor’s appearance and general demeanour. I’ve always thought it to be an amazing touch!
As for Saul there was a somewhat lenghty shot of him sitting in his new office, I chuckled to myself when I noticed the mystery lightswitch just to the left of his head.
I like small stuff like that!
Jimmy showed it to the police. When Kim says “I can’t believe they fell for that” Jimmy replies with “The video is what really sold it.” That’s when Kim goes into the fabricated evidence spiel.
I just caught up with my Monday night viewing and spotted this bit of trivia. One of the cast of Better Call Saul has an Oscar nomination as does one of the cast of another show on Monday night. There is an unusual element to their nominations. What is it?
And if you can’t be bothered looking:
Annette O’Toole had a significant part in episode 2 of 11.22.63 She is married to Michael McKean and they were nominated for the Academy Award for Best Song in the film* A Mighty Wind* .
Rockstar’s characters don’t just often tend to be greatly influenced by the [del]voice[/del] actor’s appearance and demeanor. They use motion capture not only for their body movements, but they have a system that uses a video camera to read the actor’s face and automatically translate their actual facial movements onto the computer animation. Those are real actors doing real performances under conditions that most “real” actors probably couldn’t imagine.
My guess is that Chuck gets wind of Jimmy’s dalliances with the dark side and blows up his new job. But it’s almost so obvious, I bet I’m off somehow.
Just gotta say, can’t recall the last time my wife and I laughed so hard at a TV show. I admit, I didn’t catch what was in the boxes when he got out of the car. My wife did - and I thought she was going to shit herself. Damn, that was funny. “Are you guys cops? Aren’t I speaking English? Maybe it’s like Hellman’s mayonnaise…”
I sure hope they don’t use some wrinkle of this incident having significant future implications, as what causes Jimmy problems down the line. Instead, I imagine it as the first in a long line of increasingly not-fully legal/ethical actions.
They could have written it cleaner, but it wouldn’t have been so hilarious. And when they want to continue his downfall, I’d prefer it not being done so broadly for laughs.
Speaking of that, what is the other name of Hellman’s Mayo?
Best Foods Mayonnaise
Great episode. I liked seeing Nacho’s background, and that he has a legit job working for his honest father. I’m guessing we won’t see the nerdy drug guy again, but this is the start of Mike and Nacho working more together.
Really, Chuck doesn’t have to do anything. From all appearances, nothing Chuck did this episode was dickish. He had the right to be at the meeting, and he disrupted it since everyone had to turn in their cell phones, but he didn’t try to put Jimmy on the spot. But it still ruffled Jimmy, and then he was open to Mike’s call afterward. If Mike had called before that meeting, Jimmy might have taken it, but he might not have. All Chuck has to do is be a reminder, and Jimmy will play too fast and loose with the rules on his own and things could blow up for him.
There’s definitely still some of the old-timey conman patter that Jimmy has going on. The pie-sitting story is clever because it’s not something the cops would want to investigate too much, but it’s also just more fun for Jimmy to tell.
I think you’re right though that pulling the couch away from the wall and removing the baseboard counts as going too far, but they didn’t find any evidence in the hidey hole, just the existence of a hidey hole. If they had found drugs or drug residue and arrested the guy, I think that arrest might be overturned, but since all it led to was suspicion, there’s no reason to not question him more.
I’m not a lawyer, but how would that have protected Jimmy in any way? If Pryce broke down later under interrogation, and said he had been selling drugs, and his lawyer made up the crazy story about the videos and made him make one for proof, then having the story written out on a legal pad and signed wouldn’t give Jimmy any cover.
It’s funny, because I don’t think the video was strictly necessary. It didn’t seem like they had any evidence tying the guy to anything, he just looked really suspicious with his car and job and hidden compartment in his house. But Jimmy’s story was pretty convincing, and a lot of his other behavior could be explained that he’s an IT guy and you know how weird those computer nerds can be. Jimmy made the video to really shore up the defense, but also because he still enjoys the conman life to some degree, and thinks it’s fun pulling the wool over people’s eyes. I thought that was interesting.
Jimmy told the police “there’s a costume involved”. I want to know what the costume is! They couldn’t give us a clue?
So was the “squat cobbler” video that Pryce was forced to make a deliberate punishment for his stupidity (and for not hiring Mike) or was that just a nice side effect?
I’m pretty sure that Jimmy wasn’t thinking in terms of punishment. He just wanted to make sure that the police didn’t investigate any further.
And there’s the double-con, where he comes up with a story specifically designed to humiliate the IT guy. It’s not that Jimmy gets any money out of this, but he does get to make the fool wallow in his foolishness.
Chuck can show up any time he wants, his name is on the building, but of all the days to show up, he picks the one day he knows Jimmy is going to be there. He was clearly annoyed when he found out Jimmy got a job as a real lawyer and made it obvious that he felt it was undeserved. He might not have done anything that day, but I’m sure he will. He’s not there to mend fences.
Not that they’re going this way, but if you pull my couch away from the wall, almost that exact same piece of baseboard will pop right off. It’s where I ran some speaker wire, but since I pushed the couch back and don’t own a nail gun, I never fastened it back on. No one will ever know. That’s just to say, like you did, a hole in the wall, in and of itself is meaningless.
Come to think of it, an even better way to get out of this would have been for someone (Jimmy/Pryce) to say ‘he had baseball cards in there, he was checking to see if they were gone or not’. I think that would have nicely explained it. Yes, I know there’s still the car, but at least we could have checked ‘hidey hole’ off the list of things that need explaining.
It’s possible he was paid, either by Pryce or out of Mike’s $10k. Also, I’m not sure that he went in planning to tell that story or just assumed he could get in and out but the cops kept backing him into a corner and he needed a way to get them to stop badgering him and this was the best he could do.
Oh certainly he’s not there to mend fences. And he might keep tabs on what Jimmy is up to, and alert his boss or whoever else might be bothered by his side activities. But Chuck might not need to, because just seeing Chuck bothers Jimmy a huge amount. Seeing Chuck reminded him of how honest and hard-working he tried to be, and how it didn’t get him anywhere, and so then Jimmy rebelled by doing the pro bono work and making up the crazy story and faking evidence. His stories might get crazier and his flexibility might bend even more, and things could blow up without Chuck doing anything.
But Michael McKean is on the opening credits, I’m sure Chuck will have things to do, and will probably try to undermine Jimmy.
Brain fart! He’s a natural comedian without even realizing how funny he is. And with issues, like the cellphone going off during the TV interview and the continual yoyo fumblings. Still, something loveable about the guy.
I could be wrong, but I think all of those issues are intentional. It’s his Shtick, like a comedy “magician” whose tricks all go wrong.
Good question. There is an actual full video online of Gale Bettiker doing the Major Tom song karaoke, for example, and an actual Walter White page where you can actually donate to cancer research.
What was meaningful (and suspicious) about the hidey hole was not its existence, but instead the cleared space in front of the couch.
The cops could see that IT guy had checked the hole and then put the couch back. And they knew he had both stated that his cards were kept somewhere else, and failed to mention the hole.
So that was what needed explaining.