Which is another thing I’ve been overthinking. The show has been been pushing the Walt/Heisenberg duality, but could there be a third possibility for Walt?
When he returns to ABQ in the flash forwards, he has in one sense become a third version of himself, posing as “Lambert”. Could there be more to this than just the disguise? Maybe he’s neither just the milquetoast Walt nor just the evil genius Heisenberg now, but someone or something else? And if so, who or what? A combination of the two? Maybe even someone who might get a happy ending?
I don’t mind at all that you feel this way and express it, but I AM fascinated by your opinion. Does the abvoe represent your basic beef, that you find it requires too much suspension of disbelief? I’m genuinely interested in you elaborating.
I’d also be much obliged if you’d throw out a few examples of what you consider genuinely superior shows.
Not as a debate or argument, just curiosity.
It was so weird for Paul he did a rather poor job of it, I thought. Not a big deal, but he was noticeably reaching for a characterization that he was too distant from. It was overdone.
He had real affection for Hank, but the source of his pain was the knowledge that Hank’s death would seal his fate with his family.
In one of the podcasts, I believe, there was some discussion about how Cranston deserves some kind of award for being the most loving, tender baby wrangler of all time. I agree.
The post I just made was one I had written a couple of days ago and neglected to hit “submit” on. I didn’t see the moderation on that conversation, so if it is a bad thing, apologies. But as I said, I was not upset or looking for a fight, I am just genuinely curious, since BB is so highly praised… I mean…
So it’s always interesting me to hear the viewpoints of people who disagree that BB is The Greatest Television Show In The History of The Universe…cuz it is.
If I was going to assume a new identity, I’d be tempted to keep my birthday - one less thing to keep track of in whatever my concocted back story turns out to be.
And if someone is tracking me down and thinks they’ve found me - the fact that my driver’s license has my birthday is going to be the least of my worries.
That reminds me an SNL sketch back in the late 90s skewering all the lavish praise critics heaped on the Sopranos. It was presented as a commercial for the Sopranos with just the logo and quotes displayed on the screen as the announcer reads them. They got progressively more ridiculous until finally, badly paraphrased from decade-old memory:
If I were given a choice to reach perfect enlightenment and joy with full knowledge of the ultimate answers to the meaning of life and the nature of the universe, or the chance to watch 30 seconds of the Sopranos, I’d choose the Sopranos.
Peter Graves, LA Times
Uuuuuuuuhhh
Bill James, SF Chronicle
hehheh. They should dust off that sketch for Breaking Bad.
Hell, I could be wrong too. But I get the impression that Jack gives Todd a little more leway/respect than he would give his other lieutenants because of family. Nothing more. And certainly no fear, The reveal of Hank as BIL to Walt was a surprise to all of the AB, and note how Hank asks Todd if he’d heard of this before. There is no doubt who’s in charge. Todd is just a beloved nephew, much as I treat my nephews as my own sons.
I find myself puzzled by the general reaction to this online. I thought the reason for this was quite clear, but I seem to be very lonely in my viewpoint on it, which makes me question whether I’m actually in tune with what the writers intended.
I do wonder though if the people who see it differently have not been doting dads to a sweet little baby like Holly. I have, so to me it is clear that it is quite simple: he adores Holly (there have been many scenes over the years establishing this), and cannot bear to lose her. I will fully admit that I was, although I am generally not “Team Walt”, rooting for him to make his getaway with her. (Were I a mother of a baby instead of a father of one, I likely would have empathised more with Skyler’s position and been especially horrified watching her be left behind without Holly.)
I so disagree with this. I am with Frazzled. I mean, Walt said at the start that he needed about one percent of that amount, but in the end look how much he amassed. And I mean, I’m glad everyone commenting on the Internet is not greedy and would settle for that much money and retire, but I think the kind of people who become multimillionaires are inherently not like that. Otherwise we wouldn’t have any billionaires.
What’s wild is that at least two professional TV critics are stubbornly sticking to this POV, even mocking viewers who saw the call as a ruse. Vulture’s Matt Zoller-Seitz tweeted:
So then an interview with the episode’s writer and director goes up on Vulture, including the following:
Confronted with this on Twitter, Ryan only semi-retreated to this lame response:
:o
The writer, Walley-Beckett, really did not acknowledge said ambiguity; but when all else fails, sure: throw in the old “death of the author” excuse. Which is fine, I guess; except that Ryan had just hours earlier been contemptuously holding up for ridicule those viewers who saw the phone call as an “absolute ploy on Walt’s part”. Which raises the question: does Ryan think Walley-Beckett is among the 97 percent, or the other three? :rolleyes:
Right, and she tried to get Jesse to go to a meeting instead of using. It was when she was forced to choose between being with Jesse and staying sober that she succumbed.
But why do you describe her as being employed by her father? Oh, you mean as the landlady. But she also worked in a tattoo parlour, which she amusingly defended to her dad as “actually really corporate” when he worried it was a bad place for an addict to work.
This.
As Snarky Kong said, Saul got him those forms. Think about it: what sense would it make to buy a business and use it to launder money if you can’t show a plausible way to have purchased the business to begin with? Defeats the whole purpose.
As I’m always finding myself as the apologist for the “death of the author excuse” around here, I first have to say that he’s right in one sense. Authorial intent doesn’t and shouldn’t dictate critical responses, and art would be a lot more boring if we for some reason decided that it should. (I doubt Moira Walley-Beckett thinks so either, at least it doesn’t jibe with my impression from the podcast. Which doesn’t mean she’s not allowed to talk about her own scripts.)
But for crying out loud, there is interpretation and there’s interpretation, and it’s not all equally valid. If I made the claim that Walt’s body in that moment was taken over by aliens, you don’t have to talk about authorial intent to see that I’m being stupid.
In my opinion, at least, anyone who can’t see that what Walt is saying in that scene is not what he’s actually feeling (at least after having it pointed out), must have been watching another show entirely. I mean, just look at his face.
That was one of the points brought up in connection with the theory that bears Bob Ducca’s name (although he says that he first saw it on reddit), about Walt picking up traits from his victims. Walt using Skyler’s maiden name might be a hint that he had killed Skyler. I guess that looks a lot less likely now, although there’s still time for some twists (I’m still hoping, as I was totally sold on it).
Martian, can you link me to other threads where you’ve stuck up for the “death of the author” perspective? It’s an interesting subject and I’d like to see what you’ve had to say; but I don’t want to hijack the thread.
