That’s not the only pertinent scene, watch the later scene where he’s talking with them *not at gunpoint in his office * where he discusses how much it will cost, makes clear that he could easily arrange a shanking for less money, and mocks them by talking about how a conscience is expensive.
It’s pretty obvious that he turned down that bribe because he was worried it was a trap or otherwise sketchy, not out of any inhibition about ethics. Accepting bribes can land him in prison and/or disbarred, he’s not going to just commit a felony for any random Joe that walks in off the street who could decide to go to the cops about it.
And again: take almost any character who ultimately appears in scores of episodes of TV and look at their first appearance (whether in the pilot or not) and you’re going to find some aspects of their characterization that don’t match with the way they were generally portrayed later, aspects that the showrunners wince at when they see that intro again. If you have examples of Saul truly being *bad *(not just a lovable scamp) that come from, like, his *tenth *appearance, or his thirtieth, that would be a lot more meaningful.
A lawyer friend of mine told me recently that he switched from criminal work because: “Becoming a better criminal lawyer means that your clients start becoming better criminals.”
So according to theR, the bad stuff that Saul did in BB is because he got sucked into the maelstrom, so only the early stuff would count because anything later can be blamed as collateral damage from Heisenberg. But according to SlackerInc, anything that Saul did early doesn’t count, because it was a first appearance, and first appearance actions don’t count. In other words, between their positions there’s nothing I can cite about Saul’s actions on the show that points to his character, because it’s either too early or late.
My position is that if you’re not going to accept things the character did in the show as pointing out that character’s personality and beliefs, then there’s no ground where we can have a reasonable discussion of the character.
To change the subject, is Jimmy paying someone to plant a battery in Chuck’s pocket actually an ethical thing for a lawyer to do? Is it possible that the stunt will end up backfiring and he will get into trouble with the bar for that?
Whatever, dude. You do realize you just took two people and treated them as one, then grossly exaggerated even from there.
How about you start with showing Saul’s eeevil BB character from something other than his very first appearance. And if you can’t, then ask yourself: if that’s really the way the writers wanted to portray him, why did they stop doing so after his first episode?
ETA:
That did seem strange. Isn’t that technically assault or something?
But that would have given Chuck the possible out that ‘the material of the chair shielded me from the battery’s emanations’ or such.
So, IS it considered “assault” in any state to put something that is non-harmful in a person’s pocket? Would ‘without their knowledge’ make any difference? I’m assuming here that the ‘putting in the pocket’ can be done without any contact with the skin that could be considered to be an impact of any kind, and of course that the object in question genuinely is non-harmful, and is not intended to be made a part of a frame-up.
Just as an aside here. I was thinking there is no reason this show can’t continue once the current timeline catches-up to Breaking Bad.
Because they are showing us flash forwards of Jimmy/Saul working at a Cinnabun, there’s always a chance that he says screw-it and starts practicing law under another identity.
Wouldn’t he need documents in order to re-register as an attorney? I’m actually more interested to see if “Gene” reconciles with Kim after all that time. Sort of like a Forrest Gump telling: BB is the present, Jimmy is the past, and Jimmy leaving the bus stop to meet Kim is the new present.
Assuming Breaking Bad took place in the present of when it aired (2008-2013) then Better Call Saul still has a few years to go - the date on the noticeboard outside Jimmy’s disbarment hearing explicitly says this series is taking place in 2003.
But I agree, there’s nothing stopping the series from continuing through the Breaking Bad years (One assumes Jimmy/Saul had other clients besides Walter & Jesse) and into the years after it, where he has to reconcile his life as a doughnut shop manager in a mid-western US shopping mall against his former life as an accomplished lawyer.
Well, the last time we saw Gene he had collapsed, so maybe Jimmy/Saul/Gene dies alone in the hospital just like he predicted for Chuck. In a flash forward that ends the final show, right after Walt walks into his office for the first time.
If there’s an episode where he seems to be urging Walt to do something bad, then that counts. But the other way round with Saul nervously going along for the ride doesn’t; it doesn’t seem that different to what Jimmy would do now. Recall he accepted the money from that embezzeler family.
I didn’t comment yet on his first appearance as I don’t remember it well (apart from the commercial :)). If he was condoning murder right out the gate that doesn’t seem consistent with his behaviour later.
Badger may not count. But Saul does suggest snuffing out Jesse in season 5 using an “Old Yeller” metaphor.
“Old Yeller was the best, most loyal dog that ever was, I mean, everybody loved that mutt. But one day he showed up rabid, and little Timmy, for Old Yeller’s own sake, had to, uh, well, I mean, you saw the movie.”
That’s a stressed Saul under real potential threat from Jesse. Nonetheless, it was his idea. One Walter rejected.
I was firmly against this idea for the first couple years, and I didn’t think Gilligan and Gould were interested in exploring it anyway. But this year on their podcast they have actually expressed interest, so I’ll trust them to do it right.
Yup, that was the only other example I could think of. But as you say, Saul was under a real potential threat, as Jesse was “rabid” at that point. And both he and Badger were “in the game”. It’s a rough game, and people get hurt. But they knew that when they signed up for it (remember, Badger carried a gun, which he flashed at the kid who ultimately killed him).
By contrast, I’ve never seen any sign that Saul would go along with violence against “civilians”. The closest he ever got that we saw was him somehow abetting the plot to poison Brock (the stupidest storyline ever on the show, but w/e), and he specifically confronted Walt in private, saying “You never told me the kid would end up in the hospital!” That shows Saul’s morality right there.