or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Breaking Bad on AMCHD
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Breaking Bad on AMCHD - Page 100

post #2971 of 4072
^^^ Should be great. Recently had an incredible interview with Joss Whedon.
post #2972 of 4072
Hmmm...ran across this today with a date of July 29, 2013 on it. In it, Charlie Rose inadvertently and unwittingly dropped a spoiler about an upcoming BB episode by revealing that he appears as himself in a brief cameo in the next to last episode. When he said it, Gilligan gently chided him with "spoiler alert."

http://www.avclub.com/articles/lets-speculate-on-what-charlie-rose-will-be-doing,100892/
Quote:
Charlie Rose is one of the most notable interviewers in American journalism, having conducted lengthy conversations with practically every worthy scientist, artist, politician, and activist in his more than 20 years on PBS. He’s also made small appearances as himself in films like Primary Colors and The Ides Of March, and a 2000 episode of The Simpsons. And according to a small, potential spoiler he let slip at a celebration of the new Breaking Bad exhibit at the Museum Of The Moving Image, he'll be expanding that filmography with an appearance on the show.

While moderating a discussion with Vince Gilligan last night, Rose mentioned he will appear in the series’ penultimate episode—titled “Granite State,” a possible callback to the flash-forward in last year’s “Live Free Or Die”—a revelation which prompted Gillian to shout, “Spoiler alert!” Rose quickly quipped, “The check is still in the mail, right?”

So, the question remains, what happens on the show that grabs national news attention and gains someone a guest spot being interviewed by Charlie Rose? Whatever it is, it's got to be a big deal. Who do you think appears as Charlie's guest being interviewed, and why?
post #2973 of 4072
It's OK to be 'for' Walt because his original intentions, to care for his family, are noble. Noble, too, is his cancer... taking the life of a brilliant man, almost a Noble Prize winner, at a relatively young age. And because Walt's nobility, and subsequently Jesse's, Skylar's, Saul's, and Mike's too as his cohorts, is less obvious and pronounced at a lower level thematically, it strikes us deeper than the everyday life experiences they all have. Although we know crystal meth does bad things to users, did we see it ruin the lives of any end users? If so, not many that we couldn't identify with anyway. Walt's just a good old guy with a few character flaws who made a couple wrong turns in life tongue.gif like anyone.
post #2974 of 4072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arvy View Post

It's OK to be 'for' Walt because his original intentions, to care for his family, are noble. Noble, too, is his cancer... taking the life of a brilliant man, almost a Noble Prize winner, at a relatively young age. And because Walt's nobility, and subsequently Jesse's, Skylar's, Saul's, and Mike's too as his cohorts, is less obvious and pronounced at a lower level thematically, it strikes us deeper than the everyday life experiences they all have. Although we know crystal meth does bad things to users, did we see it ruin the lives of any end users? If so, not many that we couldn't identify with anyway. Walt's just a good old guy with a few character flaws who made a couple wrong turns in life tongue.gif like anyone.

That would then make the Salamanca family Saints, as well as Mike who will kill anyone without batting an eyelash but is a doting grandfather ..
post #2975 of 4072
Quote:
Originally Posted by daryl zero View Post

People don't root for Walt because he's a monster or people loving bad boys. They root for him because he is the protagonist. The show is mostly seen through his eyes which gives you empathy towards him. If he was a side character, he would be no sympathetic than Todd. The guy is simply an anti-hero. I think Gilligan underestimated that effect.
^This.
post #2976 of 4072
Quote:
Originally Posted by daryl zero View Post

People don't root for Walt because he's a monster or people loving bad boys. They root for him because he is the protagonist. The show is mostly seen through his eyes which gives you empathy towards him. If he was a side character, he would be no sympathetic than Todd. The guy is simply an anti-hero. I think Gilligan underestimated that effect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

^This.

I couldn't agree more. Gilligan did misjudge how fans would react when Walt poisoned Brock, and after his further descent into depravity since then. They continue to be interested in Walt the person and have hope for his well being. Why? Because as you say, he's the protagonist.

This is also true for murderers and inmates who have been convicted of other vile offenses. They are not monsters; they remain human beings, if deeply flawed. People who commit despicable acts remain human beings. Their mothers still love them, as do their other close loved ones. Why? That's what loved ones do. They stick by their family members, flaws and all.

I don't mean to employ understatement when I use the term "flaws" to refer to criminal acts that are beyond the pale. I mean to emphasize that no human being is a monster, despite our common rhetoric about those who commit vile offenses being "monsters." There are no bad persons. There are only bad actions and deeds.

I think Gilligan misjudged how loyal viewers would stick by Walt through thick and thin, even if they were sickened by most of his behavior. It's not surprising at all to see mothers sticking by their convicted serial murder sons on death row. Those men are still their sons. Loving someone (or liking in the case of the fictional Walt) doesn't mean condoning all of their behavior or horrible misdeeds. It means accepting them for who they are, despite their sins and crimes. Many fans like Walt, horrible crimes notwithstanding. I'm one of them.
post #2977 of 4072
Quote:
Originally Posted by daryl zero View Post

People don't root for Walt because he's a monster or people loving bad boys. They root for him because he is the protagonist. The show is mostly seen through his eyes which gives you empathy towards him. If he was a side character, he would be no sympathetic than Todd. The guy is simply an anti-hero. I think Gilligan underestimated that effect.

For those that watch 'Sons of Anarchy' and 'Boardwalk Empire', does the 'Protagonist Effect' apply there as well?
I still root for Nucky Thompson on BE but, wouldn't mind seeing Jax Teller on SoA meet the grisly end he deserves.
post #2978 of 4072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will2007 View Post

There are no bad persons. There are only bad actions and deeds.
That is so much crap. To think that there are people who believe such nonsense is mind-blowing. (If that was tongue in cheek - well then, you are officially not a moron.) There are some really really bad, evil, disgusting human beings like Jeffrey Dahmer, Hitler, and Ariel Castro (RIP). The fact that they may have had some fleeting moments of decency doesn't change the fact that they are for all intents and purposes bad to the bone. To argue otherwise is a sign of empathy gone off the tracks, a failure to see the world realistically, and an inability to use English language words in the same way that everyone else does.
post #2979 of 4072
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwilson View Post

That is so much crap. To think that there are people who believe such nonsense is mind-blowing. (If that was tongue in cheek - well then, you are officially not a moron.) There are some really really bad, evil, disgusting human beings like Jeffrey Dahmer, Hitler, and Ariel Castro (RIP). The fact that they may have had some fleeting moments of decency doesn't change the fact that they are for all intents and purposes bad to the bone. To argue otherwise is a sign of empathy gone off the tracks, a failure to see the world realistically, and an inability to use English language words in the same way that everyone else does.

Nope. It is consistent with a Buddhist view of the world, including the sentient beings which are a part of it. We are all of the same flesh and blood, of the same elements, and of the same subatomic particles, and none of us is pure good or pure evil. We all harbor within us the capacity to do good deeds and we all harbor within us the capacity to do terrible, even atrocious deeds, given the "right" circumstances.

I don't know what show you're watching, but I'm certain that the point I observe above in my last two sentences is precisely one of the points Vince Gilligan and his writers intend to convey with their show BB. I've even heard Bryan Cranston express the same sentiment, in different words of course, in a roundtable discussion in front of Vince Gilligan. I believe it was during a July 2013 appearance on Charlie Rose's show on PBS. Vince did not correct him.

Anyway, if you have never done anything of which you are ashamed, then congratulations. I'm afraid that would make you a sociopath or a psychopath, however.

Are there degrees of good deeds and bad deeds? Of course. I didn't imply otherwise. Nevertheless, I am not being tongue in cheek, nor do I have difficulty with English when I write that there are no bad persons. There are only persons. It is their thoughts and deeds which are "good" or "bad." There is humanity in each of us. In some of us it is easier to see than in others, but it's there nonetheless. Listen to the Dalai Lama. He'll tell you the same thing in so many words, but he's much wittier, much deeper, much more thoughtful, and much more eloquent than I am.
post #2980 of 4072
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwilson View Post

That is so much crap. To think that there are people who believe such nonsense is mind-blowing. (If that was tongue in cheek - well then, you are officially not a moron.) There are some really really bad, evil, disgusting human beings like Jeffrey Dahmer, Hitler, and Ariel Castro (RIP). The fact that they may have had some fleeting moments of decency doesn't change the fact that they are for all intents and purposes bad to the bone. To argue otherwise is a sign of empathy gone off the tracks, a failure to see the world realistically, and an inability to use English language words in the same way that everyone else does.
I agree, but no offense to will2007. Evil is real and turns people into monsters. If you believe otherwise that's your choice, but there are most certainly bad people in this world (and in our fictional entertainment). To each their own though - you're free to believe in your own religion. smile.gif

How about Walt? I've called him monster before and will do it again. He has complete disregard for anyone but his loved ones and himself, and even his so-called loved ones probably won't be safe if they turn on him (Jessie is a good example). He started off doing only what he had to in order to make his family's future bright, but it has long surpassed that. YMMV
Edited by Nuance - 9/4/13 at 5:28pm
post #2981 of 4072
Quote:
Originally Posted by daryl zero View Post

People don't root for Walt because he's a monster or people loving bad boys. They root for him because he is the protagonist. The show is mostly seen through his eyes which gives you empathy towards him. If he was a side character, he would be no sympathetic than Todd. The guy is simply an anti-hero. I think Gilligan underestimated that effect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

^This.

I agree with Daryl's analysis too. Nevertheless, Gilligan didn't underestimate the anti-hero effect with me. I stopped rooting for Walt a long tine ago and have felt for some time that Walt is a monster who somehow, some way must be stopped. I'm not quite as desperate about all that as Hank and Jesse are but my attitude doesn't miss theirs by much.
post #2982 of 4072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

I agree, but no offense to will2007.

None taken. cool.gif
Quote:
Evil is real and turns people into monsters. If you believe otherwise that's your choice, but there are most certainly bad people in this world (and in our fictional entertainment). To each their own though - you're free to believe in your own religion. smile.gif

Sorry to be off topic, and I realize this is not a philosophy forum. I will say this, if you please. Of course evil is real, at least inasmuch as we human beings deem it so using our social conventions. It is thoughts and deeds which are evil, however, and not the persons themselves. Evil does not have a physical form.

Ideally, we judge persons' deeds, not the persons themselves. Unfortunately, too many people fall into the nasty habit of judging others as persons and end up placing some persons in the "them" box and some in the "us" box. I find that to be a particularly egregious vice myself, and I try my best to avoid it whenever I can. To me, all persons are in the same "us" box. That is to say we are all in this together. We all inhabit the same planet, same solar system, same galaxy, and the same universe, whether we agree or disagree with each other, love or hate each other, or drink the same brand of beer or not.

Although there are many variants of Buddhism, what I am most familiar with, once you dispense with the rituals and the chanting, is better thought of as a philosophy rather than a religion, and it is very consistent with a scientific philosophy of naturalism. As for the Dalai Lama, he is very enamored with physics and astronomy and has been so since he was a boy. He devours physics textbooks regularly and almost certainly knows more about it than you or me.
post #2983 of 4072
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkdragn View Post

While I don't really think Walt should "Live Long and Prosper" .. I'm OK with him as long as he does not move in next door .. wink.gif

You're probably OK unless you see them tenting the house next door for fumigation. eek.gif
post #2984 of 4072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will2007 View Post

Nope. It is consistent with a Buddhist view of the world, including the sentient beings which are a part of it. We are all of the same flesh and blood, of the same elements, and of the same subatomic particles, and none of us is pure good or pure evil. We all harbor within us the capacity to do good deeds and we all harbor within us the capacity to do terrible, even atrocious deeds, given the "right" circumstances.

I don't know what show you're watching, but I'm certain that the point I observe above in my last two sentences is precisely one of the points Vince Gilligan and his writers intend to convey with their show BB. I've even heard Bryan Cranston express the same sentiment, in different words of course, in a roundtable discussion in front of Vince Gilligan. I believe it was during a July 2013 appearance on Charlie Rose's show on PBS. Vince did not correct him.

Anyway, if you have never done anything of which you are ashamed, then congratulations. I'm afraid that would make you a sociopath or a psychopath, however.

Are there degrees of good deeds and bad deeds? Of course. I didn't imply otherwise. Nevertheless, I am not being tongue in cheek, nor do I have difficulty with English when I write that there are no bad persons. There are only persons. It is their thoughts and deeds which are "good" or "bad." There is humanity in each of us. In some of us it is easier to see than in others, but it's there nonetheless. Listen to the Dalai Lama. He'll tell you the same thing in so many words, but he's much wittier, much deeper, much more thoughtful, and much more eloquent than I am.

Who said the "Buddhist view of the world" was the one true view of the world? Besides Buddha of course. wink.gif

Don't mean to give you a hard time, but you phrase your argument in a way that assumes everyone subscribes to the Buddhist point of view.

I do admit that if the Lama gave me total consciousness it would be ..nice.
post #2985 of 4072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tack View Post

Who said the "Buddhist view of the world" was the one true view of the world? Besides Buddha of course. wink.gif

Don't mean to give you a hard time, but you phrase your argument in a way that assumes everyone subscribes to the Buddhist point of view.

Fair enough. I do not mean to convey that I think a Buddhist point of view is the only way of viewing the world. To the extent that you or anyone else took my words that way, I apologize. I am not that narrow minded. I try to be tolerant of others' views in general.

I do believe that with Breaking Bad Vince Gilligan intended and does intend to convey the notion that no person is purely good or purely evil, however. As I noted above, Bryan Cranston even stated as much using nearly those very words on Charlie Rose's show a little over a month ago. He said it right in front of Vince Gilligan, and Gilligan did not correct him. I take his silence as some kind of assent to Cranston's expression of that thought. Maybe you do not.

I think Gilligan's original thesis of transforming a man, an ordinary man, into an extraordinarily evil man (I mean that in the sense that he does a lot of evil deeds, not that he is pure evil or a "monster" in the sense that some other posters seem to be construing Walt) was a couple of things. One, it was a challenge to himself and his team as writers to be able to pull it off convincingly. Two, I think he was making a point that given the right set of circumstances, all of us have it within us the capacity to do horrible things (and the corollary that all of us have within us the capacity to do extraordinarily "good" things holds true in this view as well, and I would argue that a common thought expressed by persons deemed to be "heroes" who have risked their lives to rescue a stranger in imminent peril is that they didn't do anything that anyone else wouldn't have done in the same circumstances -- I would agree with that notion in most cases).
Quote:
I do admit that if the Lama gave me total consciousness it would be ..nice.

He does not have that ability. Only you do. The Buddha is already in each of us. Or so that's what Buddhism teaches. wink.gif
post #2986 of 4072
Okay, playing devil's advocate. Your description of how Buddhisim looks at the human condition is basically the same as nearly any religion. Christianity for one says nearly the same thing. They are all about transcending our baser instincts and become more noble, or godlike.Its only in the method used to attain that state that they differ.smile.gif

The concept of a good man becoming one capable of evil acts is nothing new. It was the whole idea behind the Shield. Its also the plot of nearly every gangster film ever made. Cagney, Bogart, Robinson...they all went down the same path as Walt. Where BB differs is in how complete the transformation is and how unflinching they are in portraying what WW becomes. Which is a monster, pure and simple. We are what we do, and Walt has done too many bad things to be considered anything else, no matter what his intentions originally were or how much good still resides in him I agree we are all a mix of good and evil, but in the end we are also the sum of the choices we make. Driven by his own hubris, Walt has made the wrong choice over and over. We find his journey fascinating because no matter how good we may think we are there is a nagging suspicion in the darkest part of our soul that given the opportunity we may be tempted to take the same path. We are all governed by society's laws and our own moral code.To stop following both those limits on our behavior and do what ever we think is in our own self interest is a tempting notion. On the surface it would appear to be liberating to do whatever you want, and I think its that sense of total freedom that drove Walt down the road he took, more than the money. And its also why we root for him, because we all have the urge to throw off the chains of law and morality.We don't of course, because we sense it won't end well. Sooner or later you have to pay the piper.

The greatest line Dylan ever wrote,imo, was simply: "To live outside the law you have to be honest." Walt has been outside of the law for a long time but he hasn't been honest. Its all about winning to him now, even if the prize is not worth what he has to throw away to get it. And he doesn't even realize what he has become or what he has done to those who love him. As long as he comes out on top its all good. He's about to discover there is a major flaw in his thinking.
Edited by lonwolf615 - 9/4/13 at 8:48pm
post #2987 of 4072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will2007 View Post

Nope. It is consistent with a Buddhist view of the world, including the sentient beings which are a part of it. We are all of the same flesh and blood, of the same elements, and of the same subatomic particles, and none of us is pure good or pure evil. We all harbor within us the capacity to do good deeds and we all harbor within us the capacity to do terrible, even atrocious deeds, given the "right" circumstances.

Then there are no good people either? Someone who devotes his or her life to others, such as the Dalai Lama, is not a good person? Not a better person than Caligula or Vlad the Impaler was?

Obviously this is as much a semantic issue as a logical one, and of course no one is all good or all bad, and of course good people do bad things and bad people do good things - but in the common use of the language of course there are bad people. You mentioned sociopaths. Those are people who are born without or never develop the capacity for empathy. And a subset of those sociopaths take pleasure in inflicting pain on others. Those individuals, simple logic tells us, are bad people. Bad bad people. Seems ridiculous to argue otherwise. Made me mad.

I understand your point of view, and if someone needs religion, Buddhism is about as enlightened as it gets (as long as we don't talk about reincarnation). So I apologize for my rudeness.
post #2988 of 4072
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonwolf615 View Post

Okay, playing devil's advocate. Your description of how Buddhisim looks at the human condition is basically the same as nearly any religion. Christianity for one says nearly the same thing. They are all about transcending our baser instincts and become more noble, or godlike.Its only in the method used to attain that state that they differ.smile.gif

Perhaps you are not the only one playing the devil's advocate. wink.gif Please note that I was not advocating that anyone follow a Buddhist path or the path of any religion or philosophy (personally, I lean more towards a kind of existentialism, for what it's worth). I was responding to another poster who called my comments "crap" and "nonsense" and suggested I am a moron if I do not subscribe to a binary view of judging persons as "good" or "bad." I suggested an alternative way of looking at human beings, one that is more nuanced than a binary, judgmental view. I suggested the radical notion of judging one's deeds and misdeeds, if you will, rather than the humanity of the person himself.

You are right in that considering the whole person is hardly radical or unique to any religious or philosophical perspective. I made no claim to the contrary.
Quote:
The concept of a good man becoming one capable of evil acts is nothing new. It was the whole idea behind the Shield. Its also the plot of nearly every gangster film ever made. Cagney, Bogart, Robinson...they all went down the same path as Walt. Where BB differs is in how complete the transformation is and how unflinching they are in portraying what WW becomes. Which is a monster, pure and simple. We are what we do, and Walt has done too many bad things to be considered anything else, no matter what his intentions originally were or how much good still resides in him I agree we are all a mix of good and evil, but in the end we are also the sum of the choices we make. Driven by his own hubris, Walt has made the wrong choice over and over. We find his journey fascinating because no matter how good we may think we are there is a nagging suspicion in the darkest part of our soul that given the opportunity we may be tempted to take the same path. We are all governed by society's laws and our own moral code.To stop following both those limits on our behavior and do what ever we think is in our own self interest is a tempting notion. On the surface it would appear to be liberating to do whatever you want, and I think its that sense of total freedom that drove Walt down the road he took, more than the money. And its also why we root for him, because we all have the urge to throw off the chains of law and morality.We don't of course, because we sense it won't end well. Sooner or later you have to pay the piper.

The greatest line Dylan ever wrote,imo, was simply: "To live outside the law you have to be honest." Walt has been outside of the law for a long time but he hasn't been honest. Its all about winning to him now, even if the prize is not worth what he has to throw away to get it. And he doesn't even realize what he has become or what he has done to those who love him. As long as he comes out on top its all good. He's about to discover there is a major flaw in his thinking.

By and large, I agree with your analysis above. I have little doubt Gilligan intended Walt to have to pay the piper all along, and I believe he will. Please note that having to answer for the consequences of one's misdeeds and bad decisions is perfectly consistent with my earlier comments. I never meant to suggest that Walt did not deserve to suffer the consequences of his actions, or that he should escape unharmed or unpunished. I suggested there remains in him a humanity, as there does in each of us. Human beings can be deserving of the severest of punishments but still remain human beings, in my view.
post #2989 of 4072
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwilson View Post

Then there are no good people either? Someone who devotes his or her life to others, such as the Dalai Lama, is not a good person? Not a better person than Caligula or Vlad the Impaler was?

Surely you do not mean to suggest such a simple, binary system of placing all human beings into a "good" box or a "bad" box? Do you tally up all a person's good deeds and pure thoughts in the "good" column, then all the person's evil deeds and evil thoughts in the "bad" column and then do some cosmic accounting to determine into which box they go?

Maybe you do, maybe you don't. I don't view the world of human affairs in such a binary, black and white fashion. Sorry. I see millions of shades of gray. I'm gray, you're gray, we're all gray. Some of us are lighter than others, some of us are darker than others, but no one is black or white. That is to say we share a common humanity. I didn't realize that was so radical a notion.
Quote:
Obviously this is as much a semantic issue as a logical one, and of course no one is all good or all bad, and of course good people do bad things and bad people do good things - but in the common use of the language of course there are bad people. You mentioned sociopaths. Those are people who are born without or never develop the capacity for empathy. And a subset of those sociopaths take pleasure in inflicting pain on others. Those individuals, simple logic tells us, are bad people. Bad bad people. Seems ridiculous to argue otherwise. Made me mad.

Ah, so you do too. I don't think we disagree. I think there was a misunderstanding due to miscommunication. It's a common problem, especially on the internet.
Quote:
I understand your point of view, and if someone needs religion, Buddhism is about as enlightened as it gets (as long as we don't talk about reincarnation). So I apologize for my rudeness.

Apology accepted. I'm not sure you do understand my point of view, as you suggested I am religious or need religion. For what it's worth, I'm not religious. I am fascinated by philosophical questions, particularly those involving morality and ethics, and from where we derive them and how we apply them, individually and collectively in societies. This TV show happens to strike a chord in me and millions of others regarding some of those issues. I find it fascinating in that regard and in many others. I enjoy discussing it, with you and others.

To anyone annoyed with this tangent that I seem to have instigated somewhat unwittingly, I apologize for the derail. I apologize to you for making you mad, but I did not intend to do so.
Edited by Will2007 - 9/5/13 at 3:06am
post #2990 of 4072
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwilson View Post

That is so much crap. To think that there are people who believe such nonsense is mind-blowing. (If that was tongue in cheek - well then, you are officially not a moron.) There are some really really bad, evil, disgusting human beings like Jeffrey Dahmer, Hitler, and Ariel Castro (RIP). The fact that they may have had some fleeting moments of decency doesn't change the fact that they are for all intents and purposes bad to the bone. To argue otherwise is a sign of empathy gone off the tracks, a failure to see the world realistically, and an inability to use English language words in the same way that everyone else does.

^^^ .. This

Man, leave the thread for a while and when I get back, it's gone all metaphysical .. wink.gif
post #2991 of 4072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will2007 View Post

Surely you do not mean to suggest such a simple, binary system of placing all human beings into a "good" box or a "bad" box? Do you tally up all a person's good deeds and pure thoughts in the "good" column, then all the person's evil deeds and evil thoughts in the "bad" column and then do some cosmic accounting to determine into which box they go?

Maybe you do, maybe you don't. I don't view the world of human affairs in such a binary, black and white fashion. Sorry. I see millions of shades of gray. I'm gray, you're gray, we're all gray. Some of us are lighter than others, some of us are darker than others, but no one is black or white.

I agree with this, I just think that there are some who, because of the type and frequency of their actions, "clip" the scale and their shade of grey is indistinguishable from pure white or black. Think Mother Theresa and Charles Manson.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Will2007 View Post

This TV show happens to strike a chord in me and millions of others regarding some of those issues. I find it fascinating in that regard and in many others. I enjoy discussing it, with you and others.

To anyone annoyed with this tangent that I seem to have instigated somewhat unwittingly, I apologize for the derail.

I think it's great to have your point of view and even better that you have thick enough skin to handle some of the juicier barbs thrown your way. Cheers. smile.gif
post #2992 of 4072
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkdragn View Post

^^^ .. This

Man, leave the thread for a while and when I get back, it's gone all metaphysical .. wink.gif

Meditation is scheduled to be over at 4:00 and the beer race starts at 4:15. See you there wink.gif
post #2993 of 4072
CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 85

smile.gif
post #2994 of 4072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will2007 View Post

I am fascinated by philosophical questions, particularly those involving morality and ethics, and from where we derive them and how we apply them, individually and collectively in societies. This TV show happens to strike a chord in me and millions of others regarding some of those issues. I find it fascinating in that regard and in many others. I enjoy discussing it, with you and others.
I share your fascination with the subject of morality. Here's why I think refusing to label Charles Manson a bad person, or Abraham Lincoln a good one, is misguided. It's like saying that there are no beautiful women, because nobody's perfect. Everybody has a blemish or two. But in the real world, in order to have meaningful conversations in which there is a common understanding of terms, you have to generalize. It's what we do as human beings. I can tell you that there are beautiful women out there, and unfortunately a few ugly ones as well. The fact that those bad looking women may have some great qualities doesn't change the fact that they aren't as much fun to look at as the pretty ones. An ugly girl may be more enjoyable to be with, more admirable, and more intelligent, but when it comes to the quality we're discussing - beauty - she wasn't blessed.

So Walter White is a bad person (about 85% bad), he's done a lot of damage, and he deserves to die. Personally I think those who commit offenses against my idea of morality deserve to be punished appropriately. However, I still kind of like him and hope he wins - because, after all, this is a television show, he's fun to watch and think about, and it's not real life.
post #2995 of 4072
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitusTroy View Post

any audiophiles in here?...there was a great little moment in the last episode which my ears enjoyed...in the scene at Hank's house when Marie is asking Jesse off camera what he wants in his coffee...the audio was isolated in the rear right speaker which sounded fantastic...I had my volume pretty high and that actually startled me as I thought someone was in my kitchen...nice job Breaking Bad sound designers

I noticed it, too. The speaker was right behind my head. It sounded like Marie was in the room!
post #2996 of 4072
I thought this week's episode was outstanding. Saul's "Old Yeller" scenario was hilarious, as was Hank testing the wireless audio ("Salma Hayek, do you copy?") and Gomez's response ("Loud and clear, idiota!").

I always liked Gomez's character and thought he was underused. It now seems like he might become an important character in the endgame...or not.
post #2997 of 4072
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougotte View Post

I always liked Gomez's character and thought he was underused

+1
post #2998 of 4072
Saw this posted on another forum. Another Scarface homage from the show:

post #2999 of 4072
Breaking Bad: 12 story lines you never got to see

Vince Gilligan and Co. give up the goods on a dozen ideas they considered/rejected...

http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/09/05/breaking-bad-story-lines/
post #3000 of 4072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will2007 View Post

They are not monsters; they remain human beings, if deeply flawed. People who commit despicable acts remain human beings. Their mothers still love them, as do their other close loved ones. Why? That's what loved ones do. They stick by their family members, flaws and all.
Boy does this one hit close to home. Also it makes it easier for us to see them as "monsters" instead of people that were created by other people/society and dealing with the real problems. I of course do not "stand" with any of those people just because they happened to be family.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tack View Post

I agree with this, I just think that there are some who, because of the type and frequency of their actions, "clip" the scale and their shade of grey is indistinguishable from pure white or black. Think Mother Theresa and Charles Manson.
I love when this happens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL8MDnuUsE4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYEOSCIOnrs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Breaking Bad on AMCHD