I just started and finished watching Breaking Bad

[ajzepp]

I read an interview Alan Sepinwall did with the producers of HBO's new show "Girls". He mentioned how the comments section of his reviews for both "Mad Men" and "Breaking Bad" contained so much vitriol for the wives of the protagonists while those same men were responsible for horrible deeds that were also cheered by those same people. It says something about our society... but I'm not sure what.

 

For me, I've always just liked the bad guys better. The horrible deeds, in my view, are much more entertaining than having to watch Skylar and her idiotic sister. Breaking Bad fascinates me because of the gray areas, though. Walt and Jesse are two of the most interesting, unpredictable characters I've ever seen. If these story lines were on the news, I'd be disgusted...but on my tv set, I love it. Same goes with shows like the Sopranos and Sons of Anarchy. Lots of gray areas in the main characters, which makes them fascinating - but only in terms of entertainment.

[The Poojer]

for those that recommended Shameless, thank you!!! i am 5 episodes into season 1 and am loving it. I think William H. Macy(and Joan Cusack) is(/are) one of the best actors around. Doesn't hurt that Emmy Rossum is absolutely gorgeous. But the characters are so flawed but so damn likeable.

Probably spend the rest of today catching up on this wonderful series.

[Buftex]

I read an interview Alan Sepinwall did with the producers of HBO's new show "Girls". He mentioned how the comments section of his reviews for both "Mad Men" and "Breaking Bad" contained so much vitriol for the wives of the protagonists while those same men were responsible for horrible deeds that were also cheered by those same people. It says something about our society... but I'm not sure what.

 

 

I have mentioned the same thing (what Spinwall said) in a few threads here, over the years... I guess everyone watches for different reasons... to me, the conflicts which the series (anti) heroes have with their wives are what make the shows realistic, and give them depth. You take those characters out of the story (or kill them off, as everyone always implores) you just have another action-adventure show...what gives the shows resonance, at least for me, is being able to empathize with the good and bad sides of the characters...their conflicts with their wives, and how their dark side affects their families, are half the drama.

 

I remember that great episode of "Breaking Bad", this past season, where Walt goes underneath the house to get all the money that he has. For all intents and purposes he sold his soul to the devil for that money. He needed to justify his "breaking bad", because he wanted to leave his family in good financial shape when he passed...well, now he isn't going to die anytime soon, and, he has ruined his family, the very thing he was trying to save...that moment, with the insane laughter coming from the ground, became the moment where Walt, officially, completed the act of "breaking bad"...after that, nothing else mattered.

 

for those that recommended Shameless, thank you!!! i am 5 episodes into season 1 and am loving it. I think William H. Macy(and Joan Cusack) is(/are) one of the best actors around. Doesn't hurt that Emmy Rossum is absolutely gorgeous. But the characters are so flawed but so damn likeable.

Probably spend the rest of today catching up on this wonderful series.

 

Interesting to hear you say that Pooj. I have watched all of the first two seasons...overall I really enjoyed it, but there was a point, beween season one and two, where I wondered why I liked it so much... but, then I remembered Emmy Rossom (sp?) and decided to watch the 2nd season...I am not sure why I like it, but I do...though some of the situations are a little far-fetched...but the cast is really strong...I hear that the BBC version of the show, which was on for years, is very good too.

 

For me, I've always just liked the bad guys better. The horrible deeds, in my view, are much more entertaining than having to watch Skylar and her idiotic sister. Breaking Bad fascinates me because of the gray areas, though. Walt and Jesse are two of the most interesting, unpredictable characters I've ever seen. If these story lines were on the news, I'd be disgusted...but on my tv set, I love it. Same goes with shows like the Sopranos and Sons of Anarchy. Lots of gray areas in the main characters, which makes them fascinating - but only in terms of entertainment.

 

AJ, don't you think the wife, and the "idiotic" sister are kind of there to establish what the "gray areas" are?

[Rob's House]

I read an interview Alan Sepinwall did with the producers of HBO's new show "Girls". He mentioned how the comments section of his reviews for both "Mad Men" and "Breaking Bad" contained so much vitriol for the wives of the protagonists while those same men were responsible for horrible deeds that were also cheered by those same people. It says something about our society... but I'm not sure what.

I hated Skylar because she was so self-righteous and just plain nasty to Walt. Whatever her feelings on drug distribution (which I have a hard time mustering up too much hatred for someone who is merely making the drug available to those who choose to buy it) the guy [believed he] was terminally ill and was trying to provide financial security for his family. It may not make it okay but those are certainly mitigating circumstances. When she came home and told him she !@#$ed her boss I wanted to shoot her myself.

[ajzepp]

 

 

 

 

AJ, don't you think the wife, and the "idiotic" sister are kind of there to establish what the "gray areas" are?

 

It's been hard for me to look past their behavior and focus on their function in terms of plot ever since that kleptomaniac scene. I just find them both uber annoying.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

So...with the departure of Gus, is there even a chance that Walt's next foil lives up to him?

[Rob's House]

So...with the departure of Gus, is there even a chance that Walt's next foil lives up to him?

Jessie will be Walt's arch nemesis next season.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Jessie will be Walt's arch nemesis next season.

 

At some point, yes, but they left off on good terms. I wonder if Mike is going to return with an axe to grind.

[Rob's House]

At some point, yes, but they left off on good terms. I wonder if Mike is going to return with an axe to grind.

Maybe. I kind of wish it ended last season. It would have been a great place to end the story. I'm going to watch next season but I'm not really looking forward to it.

[/dev/null]

Jessie will be Walt's arch nemesis next season.

I agree

 

At some point, yes, but they left off on good terms. I wonder if Mike is going to return with an axe to grind.

 

I suspect that Mike will return as a key player, but not with an axe to grind. In fact I don't think Mike cared much for Gus after that incident with Victor and the box cutter. Mike is a professional and killing Gus was strictly business. Mike doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who lets a personal vendetta interfere with business. But like you said, At some point

 

Mike and Jesse bonded near the end of the season. Jesse even saved Mike's life. At some point Jesse will figure out the Lilly of the Valley and then it's on.

 

Mike has demonstrated an affinity for kids in past episodes. I recall a scene where Mike is playing with a little and some balloons, then tells the little girl he has to go and the balloons are for another friend. Mike then takes the balloons to short out the electricity and start an ass kicking.

 

Mike will side with Jesse at first. But he will start to question the personal vendetta vs business

[Fezmid]

I loathe anything in the vampire genre...but if you like it...

Vampire isn't a genre any more than "Irishman" or "Italian" is a genre. It's simply a character type.

 

There's good vampire shows/movies (True Blood, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel) and there's bad vampire shows/movies (Twilight). But none of these are a "vampire" genre.

[Buftex]

Vampire isn't a genre any more than "Irishman" or "Italian" is a genre. It's simply a character type.

There's good vampire shows/movies (True Blood, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel) and there's bad vampire shows/movies (Twilight). But none of these are a "vampire" genre.

 

Really? I have known lots of Irishmen and Italians in my life, have yet to run across a vampire. Vampire is a character-type, in a genre!

 

Sorry, I think "True Blood" went from an interesting concept to unbearable pretty quick...at least by my standards, which work for me. It still has the coolest opening credits of any show on tv...and lots of great gratuitous nudity (Deborah Woll, huba-huba), but it isn't what I would considier a good show...my gf loves it...me, not so much... I like things that are based more in reality. I can take the un-realistic concept, if it is presented in a way that seems realistic..."True Blood" did that for about 4 weeks, and then jumped the rails, for me...

Edited May 21, 2012 by Buftex

[Rob's House]

Really? I have known lots of Irishmen and Italians in my life, have yet to run across a vampire. Vampire is a character-type, in a genre!

 

Sorry, I think "True Blood" went from an interesting concept to unbearable pretty quick...at least by my standards, which work for me. It still has the coolest opening credits of any show on tv...and lots of great gratuitous nudity (Deborah Woll, huba-huba), but it isn't what I would considier a good show...my gf loves it...me, not so much... I like things that are based more in reality. I can take the un-realistic concept, if it is presented in a way that seems realistic..."True Blood" did that for about 4 weeks, and then jumped the rails, for me...

It feels so good to hear someone echo my exact sentiments on True Blood. My wife forced me to sit through far too much of that one. W/o my iPhone & TBD to get me through those episodes I'm not sure I could have taken it.

[Fezmid]

Really? I have known lots of Irishmen and Italians in my life, have yet to run across a vampire. Vampire is a character-type, in a genre!

You made my point. Italian is not a genre. Irishmen is not a genre. Vampire is not a genre. All are CHARACTERS in a movie.

 

Sorry, I think "True Blood" went from an interesting concept to unbearable pretty quick...at least by my standards, which work for me. It still has the coolest opening credits of any show on tv...and lots of great gratuitous nudity (Deborah Woll, huba-huba), but it isn't what I would considier a good show...my gf loves it...me, not so much... I like things that are based more in reality. I can take the un-realistic concept, if it is presented in a way that seems realistic..."True Blood" did that for about 4 weeks, and then jumped the rails, for me...

I've only seen the first season and thought it was good (and the intro is amazing like you said). Not sure about after that though. Regardless, my initial point still stands - saying "I don't like the vampire genre" makes no sense.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

I agree

 

 

 

I suspect that Mike will return as a key player, but not with an axe to grind. In fact I don't think Mike cared much for Gus after that incident with Victor and the box cutter. Mike is a professional and killing Gus was strictly business. Mike doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who lets a personal vendetta interfere with business. But like you said, At some point

 

Mike and Jesse bonded near the end of the season. Jesse even saved Mike's life. At some point Jesse will figure out the Lilly of the Valley and then it's on.

Mike has demonstrated an affinity for kids in past episodes. I recall a scene where Mike is playing with a little and some balloons, then tells the little girl he has to go and the balloons are for another friend. Mike then takes the balloons to short out the electricity and start an ass kicking.

 

Mike will side with Jesse at first. But he will start to question the personal vendetta vs business

 

I wonder about this. Will the trigger be Jesse finding out about the poison, or Walt finally slipping up and revealing that he didn't save Jane? Or both? Or something else entirely?

 

God, I'm excited.

[Buftex]

You made my point. Italian is not a genre. Irishmen is not a genre. Vampire is not a genre. All are CHARACTERS in a movie.

 

 

 

 

Mmmmm....not really. You could have, say, a war movie (genre) with an Italian guy...and he could have all the qualities that could "stereotype" an Italian, but it would still be a war movie. The minute the Italian soldier starts breaking the knee-caps of the guys in his platoon who owe him money for, say, cigarettes that he stole from a supply truck meant for another platoon, the movie becomes a gangster movie, set during a war.

 

You throw a vampire into the platoon, it becomes a vampire movie, because vampires don't exist. An Italian guy, or an Irishman can be incidental characters...because they are human, and human's exist, in (most) all films. There could be an entire story created around those characters, where the fact that they are Irish or Italian does not matter one iota to the story.

 

If a vampiere is a character in a movie, typically, the story, somehow, revolves around the fact that they are a vampire, which, to me anyways, makes it a vampire flick, part of a genre, or type of story that I don't particularly care for. Does that make any sense?

Edited May 21, 2012 by Buftex

[HopsGuy]

Mmmmm....not really. You could have, say, a war movie (genre) with an Italian guy...and he could have all the qualities that could "stereotype" an Italian, but it would still be a war movie. The minute the Italian soldier starts breaking the knee-caps of the guys in his platoon who owe him money for, say, cigarettes that he stole from a supply truck meant for another platoon, the movie becomes a gangster movie, set during a war.

 

You throw a vampire into the platoon, it becomes a vampire movie, because vampires don't exist. An Italian guy, or an Irishman can be incidental characters...because they are human, and human's exist, in (most) all films. There could be an entire story created around those characters, where the fact that they are Irish or Italian does not matter one iota to the story.

 

If a vampiere is a character in a movie, typically, the story, somehow, revolves around the fact that they are a vampire, which, to me anyways, makes it a vampire flick, part of a genre, or type of story that I don't particularly care for. Does that make any sense?

 

This civil disagreement seems to be about taxonomy. I remember watching "At the Movies" as a kid and having Ebert & Siskel discuss the difference between "Terror" and "Horror". "Terror" is something that can actually happen - like a serial killer stalking a bunch of teenagers. "Horror", on the other hand, involves the supernatural. To me, "The Walking Dead" is the 'Horror' version of "Jaws" - the characters are out of their element (Brody, Quint, & Hooper on the water vs. the survivors in a post-apocalyptic world) and something mindless is trying to eat you (the shark vs. the walkers).

 

I don't watch "True Blood". I didn't think I could get into it because when I was in college I read the Anne Rice books and figured no one was going to be able to do any better when it came to vampires. But there will always be vampire movies. They're interesting. They have lots of depth, and there's a bit of sexuality involved. That sells.

 

Anyway, "Breaking Bad" returns July 15th. I think the speculation that it will be Walt vs. Jesse is probably correct. Vince Gilligan only has 16 episodes to go. He can introduce some new characters on the level of Jane, but he needs to tie up the whole "Mr. Chips into Scarface" premise he started with.

[Fezmid]

Mmmmm....not really. You could have, say, a war movie (genre) with an Italian guy...and he could have all the qualities that could "stereotype" an Italian, but it would still be a war movie. The minute the Italian soldier starts breaking the knee-caps of the guys in his platoon who owe him money for, say, cigarettes that he stole from a supply truck meant for another platoon, the movie becomes a gangster movie, set during a war.

 

You throw a vampire into the platoon, it becomes a vampire movie, because vampires don't exist. An Italian guy, or an Irishman can be incidental characters...because they are human, and human's exist, in (most) all films. There could be an entire story created around those characters, where the fact that they are Irish or Italian does not matter one iota to the story.

 

If a vampiere is a character in a movie, typically, the story, somehow, revolves around the fact that they are a vampire, which, to me anyways, makes it a vampire flick, part of a genre, or type of story that I don't particularly care for. Does that make any sense?

I understand what you're saying, but I still disagree. Is the movie E.T. an "Alien" genre or a "sci-fi" genre? It's obviously in the sci-fi genre (to me, anyway). But like Hops said, it's just a terminology thing so we can agree to disagree.

[Buftex]

I understand what you're saying, but I still disagree. Is the movie E.T. an "Alien" genre or a "sci-fi" genre? It's obviously in the sci-fi genre (to me, anyway). But like Hops said, it's just a terminology thing so we can agree to disagree.

 

 

I never use this emoticon...but you have forced my hand! :wallbash:

 

[Fezmid]

I never use this emoticon...but you have forced my hand! :wallbash:

 

Trying to knock some sense into your head so that you see my point? I appreciate that!