So there’s not only Jimmy’s backstory to the backstory but now we have Mike’s backstory to the backstory, and a little of his brothers as well.
If we carry on like this we should make the Mayflower by E8.
My favorite little moment was yet another illustration of how good Jimmy is at thinking on his feet:
The crazy “rancher Bundy” type says Jimmy’s car is “a sign a good man can’t get ahead today”. Jimmy swirls his drink and visibly thinks for a moment, then responds “Well, that may be, but I refuse to consider myself a victim.” Boo-yah!
Didn’t they technically have probable cause on the stolen newspaper? Or is that too petty to qualify? It does include trespassing too, I suppose.
I agree–and given that she’s played by at least somewhat of a “name” actor, this is probably not the last we’ve seen of her.
I actually was not a huge fan of those (which often included people digging, shot from below as if at an aquarium and someone is digging in the “tank” above you). It’s an extreme minority view, I’m aware–but I actually think Breaking Bad didn’t need them and would have been an even better show with everything else written/directed/acted/filmed the same, but without the “trick” angles. (I do think BB was the greatest show of all time, but in spite of that fancypantsiness rather than because of it.)
Yeah, I agree that some of the angles didn’t work. Specifically the ones you mention, shot from below as if the ground or floor is transparent.
Huh, ok. I was misremembering then that she was maybe 5 or 6 years old on BB.
But I’m sure you guys are right. He’s probably been all over their case about seeing his granddaughter, which is why she probably gave Mike the hairy eyeball when she spotted him stalking their home.
Maybe he’s going to hire Saul to win visitation rights with his granddaughter.
Interesting thought, although given that this takes place after Troxel v. Granville, he wouldn’t have a case unless the mom is a crackhead or something.
Right on, I thought it was just me. I found it frustrating at times, like hearing one of the all-time great sopranos sing but recorded by a producer who’s addicted to Auto-Tune. :smack:
Maybe he’ll find some shady way to force the issue; blackmail her with something from her past or something.
I can forgive it. To produce something as different and as good as BB, you have to take risks, and taking risks means that you’ll fail sometimes.
I noticed that the young lady who played the daughter in law had two inspection/tax stickers on her windshield:
02-12, on top of,
02-6
Not being a resident of NM, anybody want to clue me in as to the possible year? 2012 or 2006 or 2002?
I can’t speak to the dates, but New Mexico doesn’t issue inspection stickers. Also, the car has front and rear tags (rear only in NM). I think the car is from out of state.
The stickers look like semi-annual stickers from Pennsylvania. From here.
Was Mike originally from Pennsylvania?
Those stickers look just like the two stickers I have on my car. One is inspection, the other is emissions. I’m in Pennsylvania.
Here are some Google images: pennsylvania auto stickers - Google Search
and here’s a site that displays some: Bruce Bufalini's Pennsylvania windshield inspection stickers page
This would fit with him being from Philly. However, PA does not have front plates, and that plate doesn’t look like a PA plate anyway. That could be explained by her moving from out of state but never removing the old stickers. But there is one thing that to me looks like an inconsistency. As far as I know, the two PA stickers always show the same month and year. In her case the top one shows Dec 2002, and the bottom shows June 2002. One of the stickers is for the safety inspection, the other is for emissions. Emissions laws vary for different parts of the state, but Philly, which I live near, is one of the more stringent areas and I’ve always gotten the emissions sticker the same time as the inspection sticker.
Maybe there are circumstances where emissions and safety testing are done at different times for some reason or maybe it’s different in other parts of the state. Just because he’s from Philly doesn’t me that she would have to be.
Annual, not semi-annual.
Thinking about it, maybe Philly is stricter on emissions than the surrounding suburbs (where I live) so maybe the emissions testing has to be done every 6 months (as opposed to the statewide once a year safety inspection sticker). That would fit with her stickers being different by 6 months. If so that would mean that she left Philly sometime between December 2002 and June 2003 (assuming she kept up with the legally required inspections).
There don’t appear to be any stickers on Mike’s window so either he removed them or he didn’t own that car in PA.
I just want to admire that pick up.
Impressive.
PA’s website seems to indicate that in the Philadelphia region emission and safety inspections are done at the same time, so it’s difficult to explain the 6 month difference if she’s from Philly.
It says the same thing for the Pittsburgh area.
I would have to think that Philly and Pittsburgh would have the most stringent rules, being the most populated areas, so it’s difficult to explain the 6 month difference in her stickers.
It seems like there must be an explanation. The 6 month difference just seems like more than a coincidence that occurred because some prop guy didn’t understand PA’s rules.
Okay, there was a 2002 lawsuit that was settled in 2003 with some changes in the rules.
http://www.drivecleanpa.state.pa.us/changes/faq_customer.pdf
It’s not clear what the changes were and I don’t recall what the rules were before 2003. Since the lawsuit was brought by Citizens For Pennsylvania’s Future and the Clean Air Council, it seems like the inspections would be made more stringent, not less, so it seems doubtful that they changed from every 6 months to the current once a year schedule.
But what about her tags?!
Has she renewed her tags?!
Speaking of “period” vehicles, Mike’s daughter-in-law looks to be driving pretty much exactly my car (though hers looks much less beat up): a '99 Subaru Outback.