|
NeoSeeker, just because Breaking Bad emphasizes with characters who does bad things doesn't mean the show doesn't have a clear sense of morality. I feel like you've tried to color Breaking Bad as this show about how morality is entirely subjective or how there really isn't good or evil, and that's wrong. The show definitely believes that all people are capable of both and it points out moral ambiguity and hypocrisies, but that doesn't mean the show isn't presenting a clear sense of its own morality. For example, I think Breaking Bad constantly argues that the corruption or harm of a child is literally the worst thing you can do, using that act for a dramatic stakes and to color how far gone characters are. In short, it's silly to argue that the world "villain" is invalid in Breaking Bad. It's valid in the sense that Gus and Tuco are monsters. And it's valid in the sense that Gus and Tuco are antagonists.
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
 You're not trying to argue that Todd and his Neo-Nazi family were morally ambiguous... right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Todd is pure theatre, he's a cartoon gimmick. He's innocent and dopey while being casually violent. That's his entire character. A bit like the mute assassin twins, although they were never main characters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Austrian mook posted:
The important thing to remember about Todd though is that as awful as he is, he represents a corrupted child. That's the point of him taking Drew's tarantula, to demonstrate that he is on the same level of Drew. The same goes for the twins who are only shown as human when they're children.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 11:06
|
|
|
Reminds me of all that nonsensical "I'm still on Team Walt" rhetoric that started going around after the season 4 ending. It annoyed the hell out of me when people kept trying to define all of the characters as this or that, and it seemed like they were more interested in getting bogged down in the nomenclature rather than discussing the greater themes the characters are serving.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
NeoSeeker posted:The show demonstrates everyone has a reason for what they do. I could ask you the same question about Mike, Saul, Walter, hell even Hank, Marie and Sky. Does a character need a lack of motivation to be a "villain"? Are you using the "evil antagonist to the hero" or the "malevolent individual" meaning of the word? Because the perceived malevolence of some characters is based on their motivations. Everyone has got pretty glaring flaws but how characters cope with their flaws and the collateral damage such flaws might cause is what give a "malevolent individual" status to certain characters. I mean, I appreciated a lot the fact that Hank wasn't shown as a 100% badass. When he went to El Paso his colleagues belittled him for his attitude and got PSTD to boot: that's why he preferred chasing the white rabbit, when he shows his boss the distorted photo of the RV as solid evidence for the blue meth case - which eventually really turns into functional evidence, only because he feels he needs to make up for his failure as a fed. Hank is flawed, he knows it and wants to make up for it. This is what makes him a "good" character: he doesn't rationalize his flaws while feeding them. And when he discovers who Heisenberg is, he's still a coward. He's worried because his career will be over the moment he'll reveal the truth: but he's bent on catching Walt. Once again: I think he knows his flaws and doesn't try making up bullshit to convince himself that he shouldn't feel bad for being a coward. Contrast to Walt: "I'm doing it for the family!", which is the complete opposite reaction. Walt has knowledge of his own flaws, but he cannot admit it. He has to hide the true motivation of his actions because he can't show acknowledgment of his personal weakness. When his actions were caused by one of his flaws, he had to pull out the "I did for a noble cause" card because he couldn't live with the idea of being a flawed individual - and he's seen the consequences of this behavior of his more than once: the fact that he's didn't change ways is what makes him a malevolent individual.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Think about it less. It's semantics practically. Of course there are many villains, by definition, in this story. There are even plenty of people you have every right to not sympathize with. And therein lies my point; Walter, the main character, has done plenty of stuff to get on anyone's shitlist, to some possibly even more so than the actual antagonists. The way I see it there are no bad guys or good guys here. They're all people, they aren't dichotomised into the people you root for or the people you hate as much as another story would. I'm not saying it's the first by far, but so far it's the best example of a really morally grey story. I'm not saying there's no black or white either. There are definitely evil people in this story, but they're inorganic agents of plot. That may seem contradictory to the statement made at the beginning of this paragraph, but that's how I feel about the plot, What others may see as black and white I personally see as really blurry. I was rooting for everyone just because it was so interesting to watch. It sounds crazy but I pity the twins. And there's actually a decent explanation for that. If I have to explain you'd probably not understand in the first place. From the childhood scenes of them purely innocent to the scenes of them being hardcore bad guys. In the scene just before hank blows one of their heads off I was scared for hank as hell. But in the back of my mind I was thinking what could possibly make this person this disturbingly psychopathic. I came across this again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsqdmqRgrIc It gets greater each time, probably because the show went on after it was made.. What's the best compilation of every time Jesse says bitch? NeoSeeker fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Apr 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
This is the best drat tribute I've seen to pretty much anything. Gets the tone and the weight of the show absolutely right: http://vimeo.com/93042217 Yes, the song is the same one used in a scene in the season 4 finale.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
f#a# posted:This is the best drat tribute I've seen to pretty much anything. Gets the tone and the weight of the show absolutely right: God, is there any other drama that does black comedy so well?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
It doesn't get as dark obviously, but Mad Men is another show that's mostly known for being Serious Drama but is also one of the funniest shows on tv.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
DaVinci's Demons is hilarious, but not on purpose.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
I started watching the show recently and I'm currently in season 3, and though I am glad that Walt is making meth again because that period where he wasn't was incredibly dull, I can't figure out why Gus wants Walt to work for him. Gale seemed to know everything Walt knows and was more stable and reliable and way less crazy. Gus wouldn't hire Jesse because he wasn't reliable enough, but he wants Walt? How does this make any kind of sense?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
One very important thing for this show to work is this fact: Walts superpower is supermeth.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 12:07
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:I started watching the show recently and I'm currently in season 3, and though I am glad that Walt is making meth again because that period where he wasn't was incredibly dull, I can't figure out why Gus wants Walt to work for him. Gale seemed to know everything Walt knows and was more stable and reliable and way less crazy. Gus wouldn't hire Jesse because he wasn't reliable enough, but he wants Walt? How does this make any kind of sense? Gale is able to make really really good meth. Walt is able to make Supermeth and Gale isn't able to replicate it. Gus has his reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Gale is able to make really really good meth. Walt is able to make Supermeth and Gale isn't able to replicate it. Gus has his reasons. I guess I've never understood this. I know Walt is super finicky about his meth quality, and yeah, Jesse was really impressed, but Jesse's friends seemed to think that Jesse's version was just as good, and is the average meth user really that picky? Especially given that Walt wasn't making any at the time and would soon have been dead if Gus didn't step in, couldn't he have just gone on selling the slightly lower quality product? What does he even gain from this?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:I guess I've never understood this. I know Walt is super finicky about his meth quality, and yeah, Jesse was really impressed, but Jesse's friends seemed to think that Jesse's version was just as good, and is the average meth user really that picky? Especially given that Walt wasn't making any at the time and would soon have been dead if Gus didn't step in, couldn't he have just gone on selling the slightly lower quality product? What does he even gain from this? This is a spoiler for later motivations, I don't know how far you've seen but this addresses things later in the season. Everything Gus did he did to get to the Cartel and get into a position he could murder them all. The super-duper high quality meth was his ticket in.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
It was a bad decision by Gus, Gale's product was perfectly sufficient and didn't involve all the baggage Walt brought (the cartel, Heisenberg investigation, and Walts destructiveness). Considering Gus' cautious and meticulous characterisation it's a minor plot hole, but it can be explained by Gus wanting to possess the best meth product in the world, and as part of his eventual plan to sabotage the cartel and be the sole large meth distributor in the South West. Also Gus was never really as cautious as he was made out to be in season 2. I doubt season 2 Gus would personally host that little intervention between Jesse and the two street level dealers, no matter what Walt said.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
Ravel posted:It was a bad decision by Gus, Gale's product was perfectly sufficient and didn't involve all the baggage Walt brought (the cartel, Heisenberg investigation, and Walts destructiveness). I think the original plan was bring on Walt for 3 months and teach Gale how to make it, and then Walt stops due to dying from cancer or something else. He didn't expect Walt to push Gale out of the operation like he did.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Excellently put together tribute to the show's more tragic side, but really, remembering Breaking Bad as just an expertly executed tragedy does the show a disservice, since it's also an excellent comedy. The Sopranos. Breaking Bad is a close second, in terms of comedy, but I think the Sopranos is quite possibly the funniest TV show ever made that wasn't actually a comedy.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
So just the other week I finished the show (I don't have cable so I had to netflix it). I can't stop worrying about Jesse. I hope he's going to be OK. 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Ravel posted:It was a bad decision by Gus, Gale's product was perfectly sufficient and didn't involve all the baggage Walt brought (the cartel, Heisenberg investigation, and Walts destructiveness). That intervention scene always bugged me. If Gus was so cautious, there would be about 40 people in between street level dealers and himself, none of whom would know who they really worked for.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Let a good thing die, please.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 12:41
|
|
|
If you honestly are like "pffft, ya whatever don't give me anymore creativity Vince Gilligan and Bryan Cranston" I think I might hate you. I hate this new fad of wanting the best TV to go away as quickly as possible by all the hipster TV fans.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
I'm seeing that story blow up everywhere and it makes me chuckle. Cranston's just messing with the interviewer. There's not going to be anymore straight-up Breaking Bad. Better Call Saul is the closest we'll ever get to more.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 13:35
|
|
|
BlackJosh posted:If you honestly are like "pffft, ya whatever don't give me anymore creativity Vince Gilligan and Bryan Cranston" I think I might hate you. Well I hate this fad of wanting the best TV to go on forever until its shamefully pathetic and unworthy of being finished.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
BlackJosh posted:I hate this new fad of wanting the best TV to go away as quickly as possible by all the hipster TV fans. It's not so much a fad as people noticing that the best TV shows are the ones that ended before they got poo poo and ones that come back tend to demonstrate exactly why it was a good thing they'd finished in the first place. The people who made those shows can go on to make other shows, and that's great, but look at The Simpsons. That's what happens when shows don't end.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:It's not so much a fad as people noticing that the best TV shows are the ones that ended before they got poo poo and ones that come back tend to demonstrate exactly why it was a good thing they'd finished in the first place. The people who made those shows can go on to make other shows, and that's great, but look at The Simpsons. That's what happens when shows don't end. So... what happens is they still have huge popularity, beating out most other shows in their timeslot even at their lowest ratings ever, but have a backlash from people who remember the golden years while younger generations are fine with the current version? Truly, a tragedy for the ages that our generation will never be able to recover from.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:So... what happens is they still have huge popularity, beating out most other shows in their timeslot even at their lowest ratings ever, but have a backlash from people who remember the golden years while younger generations are fine with the current version? Then tell us where would YOU like the story of Walter White to end? 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
D1Sergo posted:Then tell us where would YOU like the story of Walter White to end? In an epilogue scene at the end of Better Call Saul.  But if Vince Gilligan and Bryan Cranston thought that there was somehow more Breaking Bad to be told, I'd trust them. (I agree with Last Chance in that he's clearly just joking around in that interview, though, especially re: whether Walt is dead or not.)
thexerox123 fucked around with this message at 16:43 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
D1Sergo posted:Then tell us where would YOU like the story of Walter White to end? Jesse, sitting in his office and now manager of Alaska's newest laser tag center, is startled when his door bursts open. Standing in the doorway is the half rotted corpse of Walter White, who groans "Jesse, we have to do one more cook." Gale pokes his head in from behind and waves hello, because it turns out Jesse really did miss shooting him in the face.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:In an epilogue scene at the end of Better Call Saul. Yeah, that's the thing. This isn't the loving Office. These dudes are masters and whatever they decided to do with the material I would trust them one hundred percent. Also yeah, Cranston is probably just loving with people because he's awesome.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Last Chance posted:I'm seeing that story blow up everywhere and it makes me chuckle. Cranston's just messing with the interviewer. There's not going to be anymore straight-up Breaking Bad. It will be a prequel about a chemist who leaves his company to find his true calling as a high school science teacher. Hangin' with Mr. White, Sunday at 9:00 on AMC!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
BlackJosh posted:Yeah, that's the thing. This isn't the loving Office. These dudes are masters and whatever they decided to do with the material I would trust them one hundred percent. Have people forgotten Godfather 3 already? I mean yeah we all loved Breaking Bad, but Vince Gilligan doesn't in fact, poo poo gold. Just because a person is talented doesn't mean everything they do will be good, even if it's a part of their 'good' series.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
PootieTang posted:Have people forgotten Godfather 3 already? Yes, the world will not be perfect. You are correct. 100% of entertainment will not be 100% entertaining 100% of the time. I don't even know the point your making. Of course whatever he does next might not be good. That's the nature of the beast. But he's got a pretty good track record and he's less likely to fail than a lot of other people at making an entertaining story, I'd reckon. I mean, this is the real world we're talking about, so if a new Breaking Bad series was to be put on, say even Walt survives... do you really think whatever would have filled that timeslot instead would be better? Would you bet against being entertained by more Breaking Bad from Gilligan and Cranston?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
BlackJosh posted:Yes, the world will not be perfect. You are correct. 100% of entertainment will not be 100% entertaining 100% of the time. I guess my point is that Breaking Bad is over and people should let sleeping dogs lie rather than try to bring it back. quote:I mean, this is the real world we're talking about, so if a new Breaking Bad series was to be put on, say even Walt survives... do you really think whatever would have filled that timeslot instead would be better? Would you bet against being entertained by more Breaking Bad from Gilligan and Cranston? And really you sound like a producer now, 'Why not just make endless sequels? New stuff is always bad! Original ideas? gently caress that! We just need more of the same, sequels, re-makes, remakes of the sequels, sequels to the remake of the prequel to the reboot etc etc And look where that has gotten film. Film is the bottom of the barrel now because it's so bereft of creativity because of that line of thinking, that just stretching out proven material is a 'safer bet' than trying something new. I mean Breaking Bad may never have been made if they said 'Why bring in this new 'Breaking Bad' show? Do we really think that this new thing is gonna be better than the previous thing? Let's just make a sequel to that old thing instead! I mean we all loved Star Wars, and we all wanted more. Then we got the prequels and everyone realized too late that they didn't want what they thought they wanted. I'm just seeing the same thing happening here.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:So... what happens is they still have huge popularity, beating out most other shows in their timeslot even at their lowest ratings ever, but have a backlash from people who remember the golden years while younger generations are fine with the current version? Then you have The Walking Dead.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Then you have The Walking Dead. Then you have the Walking Dead video game by Telltale that came after the Comics and TV Show, and is better than both.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:Then you have the Walking Dead video game by Telltale that came after the Comics and TV Show, and is better than both. So what you're saying is that they should make a licensed video game of Breaking Bad? It's genius! A video game based on a movie or TV series... There's no way it could be bad!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
PootieTang posted:I guess my point is that Breaking Bad is over and people should let sleeping dogs lie rather than try to bring it back. 5'd and subscribed to your web log
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
PootieTang posted:It's genius! A video game based on a movie or TV series... There's no way it could be bad! Achievements: Pufferfish Intimidate 20 enemies Kiss the cook Craft a 99% purity batch of meth Hola DEA Kill 5 enemies with one explosion
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 20:12
|
|
