Works where you were surprised to learn you were in the minority of viewers

[Keltest]

No, it's not (and likewise, "just enough rope" is used when you know someone will act a certain way, not for manipulation). Like, let's say i started talking about something i know you love to discuss, but can get very political. I bring it up, and then say "now let's absolutely not get into politics here" in fancy red text. And you respond talking going deeply into politics. I didn't manipulate you into doing that. It may have been crappy of me to do if i knew you loved to discuss that and if i figured you'd dive straight into political discussion, but there's plenty of ways to be crappy without being manipulative, and anyway the explicity warning of "DO NOT DO THIS" really does a lot of heavy lifting there to boot. But it's not manipulation. If you want a more stark explanation why it's not, Chuck manufactured the opportunity there but does nothing to push Ernie into a choice, while Jimmy manufactures opportunities and then actively pushed the person into the desired choice.

...Yes, thats totally manipulation Peelee. Manufacturing opportunities based on how you know people will react to them is practically quintessential manipulation. What youre describing Jimmy doing is coercion, where he is actively attempting to force people to make the choices he wants them to. YMMV on whether that's worse or just a lateral move (I lean towards lateral personally).

Can't comment on the rest due to, as I said, having not actually seen the show.

[Trafalgar]

On the whole Chuck vs Jimmy thing: I actually agree that Chuck was right to make HHM not hire Jimmy. Chuck knows, better than anyone, that Jimmy has a weak moral and ethical compass.

What I don't like is how Chuck hides these decisions behind Howard so Jimmy continues to support Chuck through his medical issues.

[Batcathat]

...Yes, thats totally manipulation Peelee. Manufacturing opportunities based on how you know people will react to them is practically quintessential manipulation. What youre describing Jimmy doing is coercion, where he is actively attempting to force people to make the choices he wants them to. YMMV on whether that's worse or just a lateral move (I lean towards lateral personally).

Assuming someone will act a certain way of their own volition is as bad as forcing them to act a certain way? Seems like a controversial take.

[Metastachydium]

It's really staggering how, for a show about politics and power, Game of Thrones conception of "how power works" ultimately came down "if you crump the big guy, you get all his stuff".

Neither Cersei or Ellaria should be as uncontested in their power as they are shown to be in the show. Frankly considering the extent of their crimes it is baffling that either is able to survive a day, let alone months without their subjects going into open rebellion.

Precisely. And going against someone smarter who's also better entrenched into their positions bothe economically and politically (like Cersei attacking the Tyrells)? That should only make it happen faster.

But you see, they have a flower for their symbol, which means they're weak and feminine and are no match for the army with a lion for a symbol. That's how warfare works!

they have a flower for their symbol, which means they're weak

…
…
…
[Begins entering murderous rampage mode to go after the showrunners.]

It would have been so easy to introduce the idea that murdering Doran outraged his supporters and so Lord Ironwood or whatever is going to align with Cersei and take over Dorne. You don't even need to cast them, you can just have Cersei talk about them in dialogue.

And the funniest thing, it wouldn't have changed anything in terms of plot either, except for making Cersei marginally more credible as a threat (I mean, Dorne is the only anti-Dragon measure that is not "also Dragons, but more of them" available readily on the map).

I don't know if I agree with that. I think in the hands of someone with a keen understanding of fantasy fiction who was writing with a sense of thematic and narrative purpose it could be pretty cool.

D&D very blatantly were not the sort of writers who could pull that.

Fair, but the whole "you are only smart until a dragon or ice zombie eats you (and you can't have those; only these two characters have those, and one of them is barely a character)" thing kinda makes it tough to let the actually interesting characters be more than a temporary diversion.

The thing is that ultimately, Pilou wasn't playing Euron. Pilou got one Euron scene at the start and from the Kingsmoot on is playing Victarion. And I liked Victarion a lot more when he was a loudmouthed buffoon who was very obviously being played by everyone around him and going to get himself killed doing something incredibly stupid, not the endgame villain of the entire story. The Kingsmoot honestly makes me angry. It's a nigh perfect scene in the books, and what made it to the show is such a shell of what it was. They replaced speeches that felt cinematic on the page and which spoke to the themes of the series with a glorified **** measuring contest between two characters who have no real ideological conflict.

Huh. I never thought about it like that, but it makes an awful lot of sense. (Emphasis on awful. It ended up awful.)

[Keltest]

Assuming someone will act a certain way of their own volition is as bad as forcing them to act a certain way? Seems like a controversial take.

Sure, if youre using it to get them to do things they shouldnt be doing, and that you know they shouldn't be doing. Its a question of subtlety to me, not severity.

[Peelee]

...Yes, thats totally manipulation Peelee. Manufacturing opportunities based on how you know people will react to them is practically quintessential manipulation. What youre describing Jimmy doing is coercion, where he is actively attempting to force people to make the choices he wants them to. YMMV on whether that's worse or just a lateral move (I lean towards lateral personally).

Can't comment on the rest due to, as I said, having not actually seen the show.

No, manufacturing opportunities is not manipulation. And Jimmy's actions are not coercion (or, well, not the actions I described). Like, you may think they're those things, but they're not. That's not how manipulation or coercion work. You're basically elevating each to the next level.

On the whole Chuck vs Jimmy thing: I actually agree that Chuck was right to make HHM not hire Jimmy. Chuck knows, better than anyone, that Jimmy has a weak moral and ethical compass.

What I don't like is how Chuck hides these decisions behind Howard so Jimmy continues to support Chuck through his medical issues.

Oh I fully agree. One of Chuck's worst qualities was that he waa just a straight-up coward. This also cuts towards Jimmy supporting him - I'm sure Chuck tried his best to dissuade Jimmy from doing it, but the whole "he's a damned coward" thing prevented him form actively setting his foot down on it.

His pride is also off the charts. If he has just accepted his mental illness, then the hearing against Jimmy would have gone exactly as he hoped. Kim's plan would be deflated before it even started and even if they tried to make it an issue, Chuck could have steered into the skid. Both brothers were off the charts full of themselves.

Assuming someone will act a certain way of their own volition is as bad as forcing them to act a certain way? Seems like a controversial take.

Strongly agree, because it's wrong. For example, my saying this (and what i said above) is not in any way manipulating Keltest into answering, though I strongly suspect he will.

[Keltest]

No, manufacturing opportunities is not manipulation. And Jimmy's actions are not coercion (or, well, not the actions I described). Like, you may think they're those things, but they're not. That's not how manipulation or coercion work. You're basically elevating each to the next level.

Not sure what else to say here except that you are mistaken. If I'm getting somebody to do what I want them to do by altering circumstances around them until they make the decisions I want them to make, that's manipulating them. It's really good, subtle manipulation because its hard to catch even.

[Saph]

Something I think Better Call Saul does really well is to present Chuck as an a-hole, make you really hate Chuck, make you cheer for Jimmy when he scores points against Chuck, and generally make him Chuck one of the primary antagonists of the series . . . while all the time, showing that the nasty things that Chuck says about Jimmy are, for the most part, absolutely true.

I hated Chuck in the early seasons. It was only after he left, and you get to see what Jimmy is like on his own, that it started to occur to me "wait, Chuck was actually right about his brother all along, wasn't he?"

[Batcathat]

Sure, if youre using it to get them to do things they shouldnt be doing, and that you know they shouldn't be doing. Its a question of subtlety to me, not severity.

So if I get someone to do something, it doesn't matter if I do it by exploiting my knowledge about them, giving them a million dollars or threatening to kill them? Personally, I think the method I'm using matters quite a lot and "letting them choose by themselves, knowing their choice will benefit me" is definitely one of the mildest possible methods.

[Keltest]

So if I get someone to do something, it doesn't matter if I do it by exploiting my knowledge about them, giving them a million dollars or threatening to kill them? Personally, I think the method I'm using matters quite a lot and "letting them choose by themselves, knowing their choice will benefit me" is definitely one of the mildest possible methods.

Why? Just because its harder to prove the connection?

[Batcathat]

Why? Just because its harder to prove the connection?

No, because I think threatening to kill someone to get my way is worse than bribing them to get my way which in turn is worse than just letting them do what they want. It's basically the difference between me leaving my wallet seemingly unattended knowing you are likely to try stealing it and me framing you for trying to steal my wallet. The outcome is the same – you getting arrested for stealing my wallet – but in one case it's because you choose to do it and in the other you had no choice at all.

[Trafalgar]

Something I think Better Call Saul does really well is to present Chuck as an a-hole, make you really hate Chuck, make you cheer for Jimmy when he scores points against Chuck, and generally make him Chuck one of the primary antagonists of the series . . . while all the time, showing that the nasty things that Chuck says about Jimmy are, for the most part, absolutely true.

I hated Chuck in the early seasons. It was only after he left, and you get to see what Jimmy is like on his own, that it started to occur to me "wait, Chuck was actually right about his brother all along, wasn't he?"

I think one thing to remember about Chuck is that he has a legitimate mental illness. Where does the mental illness end and his personality start? If you have ever had a mentally ill loved one, you realize that they are often not themselves and can do and say all sorts of messed up things.

One thing that is obvious in the series is that Chuck has never gotten any sort of treatment for his illness. Who knows what would have happened if he had? Perhaps medication could have treated much of the problem. And does this mean that Jimmy and Howard are actually enabling Chuck instead of doing the right thing and really helping him.

This ambiguity is why I like Vince Gilligan's writing. Does Jimmy turn into Saul because of his brother? Is Walter White just doing it because of the cancer? I can talk about this for hours.

[Peelee]

Not sure what else to say here except that you are mistaken. If I'm getting somebody to do what I want them to do by altering circumstances around them until they make the decisions I want them to make, that's manipulating them. It's really good, subtle manipulation because its hard to catch even.

Imean, this is confusing, because now you're agreeing with what I said and disagreeing with what you said. Chuck played a tape for Ernie. That's it. That's all. Chuck did not alter anything, and again, he explcitly told Ernie to not tell anyone, and that he was legally bound to not tell anyone. Both personal and professional warnings. Ernie did it in spite of this. That is not manipulating.

Consider: i take a sack of cash and put it on the ground. I tell you, hey, don't take that sack of cash, that's mine, it's illegal to steal. You take it. I set you up, sure, but i did jack all to manipulate you. Your own greed was the sole reason you took the sack.

Conversely, with Irene, Jimmy constantly alters circumstances until Irene makes the decision Jimmy wants. Which you claimed was coercion, not manipulation, but you now describe exactly as manipulation. Like....I'm glad we agree, even if you present it as not?

ETA: Also, again, wholeheartedly recommend the show. It's easily one of the best shows I've ever seen.

I think one thing to remember about Chuck is that he has a legitimate mental illness. Where does the mental illness end and his personality start? If you have ever had a mentally ill loved one, you realize that they are often not themselves and can do and say all sorts of messed up things.

One thing that is obvious in the series is that Chuck has never gotten any sort of treatment for his illness. Who knows what would have happened if he had? Perhaps medication could have treated much of the problem. And does this mean that Jimmy and Howard are actually enabling Chuck instead of doing the right thing and really helping him.

This ambiguity is why I like Vince Gilligan's writing. Does Jimmy turn into Saul because of his brother? Is Walter White just doing it because of the cancer? I can talk about this for hours.

It's pretty easy to see where Chuck's mental illness stops and his personality begins, IMO. Hell, I've worked with (among others) a person with encephalitis before who was also a petty jerk, and after a few weeks to months at most you could easily tell what things she did or said that were due to her condition and what things she did or said that were due to her having a poor personalty. And Chuck's condition is significantly more acute than that. The only reason it was even as big a problem as it was for him was because of his colossal pride such that he refused to believe he might need mental health help.

Also, he does get treatment. We see him do it in the show, after he is forced to come to grips that it's mental, and we see him improve.

Frankly, Chuck's biggest mistake was getting Jimmy off those charges in Illinois (the ones where Jimmy called his mom crying to get her to guilt Chuck into helping him). Letting Jimmy actually face the consequences of his actions would have helped.

ETA: Apropos of very little, one thing i might have not in common with the vast majority of BCS audience was i went in without having seen any of Breaking Bad. I vaguely knew who Saul was, a friend had shown me the clip of him begging in the desert saying "Lalo didn't send you? No Lalo?", but that's about it. Close to 100% of my impression was from BCS until i caught up on it (middle of season 3 or 4). Once that season ended, i jumped straight into Breaking Bad because BCS was so damned good. I don't know how or why that would color my perception, and i dont think it did, but I'm not against the possibility that it may have without me realizing.

[Keltest]

As far as Jimmy goes, I'm just going off what people have said. Someone mentioned he was using more forceful methods like blackmail, so I rolled with that.

As far as the cash bag example goes, yes it's manipulation if you did it with the expectation that the person would take it. Telling him not to doesn't really change that.

[Peelee]

As far as Jimmy goes, I'm just going off what people have said. Someone mentioned he was using more forceful methods like blackmail, so I rolled with that.

As far as the cash bag example goes, yes it's manipulation if you did it with the expectation that the person would take it. Telling him not to doesn't really change that.

For Jimmy, you're conflating things because of your unfamiliarity with the material. Jimmys does blackmail, but not Irene. He just alienates her from her friends in the assisted living facility she's in so he's her only support structure anymore, and then all but tells her to settle a case he has a massive financial stake in. It not blackmail, it's just manipulation. Exactly as you described.

For the sack of money, sure, maybe you consider that manipulation. I don't, and will never share that belief, because that grossly dilutes what manipulation is. At that point, hey, I've manipulated you into responding to me just all the time on here. And others. I'm a master manipulator, as are a bunch of other users. This whole board is chock full of manipulation.

Again, if you want to have manipulation be so diluted to cover that example or Chick's actions, i cant change your mind. But i refuse to accept such a massively-encompassing definition.

[Errorname]

[Begins entering murderous rampage mode to go after the showrunners.]

It'd be dumb on it's own even if it wasn't being adapted from books where two of the best fighters in the series are Tyrells. Like Loras and Garlan not-appearing-in-this-picture are both described as extremely skilled fighters.

[Rynjin]

Peelee I feel like you're getting real defensive over the manipulation discussion because you both are conflating manipulation = bad.

And it's not. All human interactions are a form of manipulation. If you arrange to put somebody in a situation where they will "act according to their nature", you have manipulated them and the situation to your benefit.

This can be good, and it can be bad. It's a ****ty thing for Chuck to do, because his motives are "unpure".

But in the grand scheme of things, Jimmy is an irredeemable piece of garbage, like most protagonists in the Breaking Bad Extended Universe and anything anyone does to him can be considered karmic retribution for his past acts. Who cares if he got manipulated? That's just him getting served his own medicine.

[Peelee]

Peelee I feel like you're getting real defensive over the manipulation discussion because you both are conflating manipulation = bad.

And it's not. All human interactions are a form of manipulation. If you arrange to put somebody in a situation where they will "act according to their nature", you have manipulated them and the situation to your benefit.

This can be good, and it can be bad.

Sure, but in the context we're discussing it in, it's bad.

It's a ****ty thing for Chuck to do, because his motives are "unpure".

I'm not going to argue about "purity" of his motives, but i will argue his motives weren't the ever-given "envious of Jimmy" or "wanting to hold something over him". His motives were "Jimmy forged legal documents with the specific goal of professionally embarrassing me, committing a litany of felonies in doing so, so he doesn't deserve to have a law license". As i always bring up, if Chuck just wanted to sabotage Jimmy, he had prime opportunity to do so when Jimmy waa picked up by Davis & Main. Despite Chuck's fear of electricity, we've seen he is perfectly capable of picking up a phone and making a call if he thinks it's important enough, and even without that, he could write a letter. Chuck is portrayed as incredibly highly respected in the NM legal community, and could torpedo Jimmy's career at D&M easily. He doesn't, because until Jimmy does the copy shop shenanigans, Chuck just doesn't want Jimmy in his firm, and was perfectly happy leaving it at that. He let Jimmy torch his own career on his own with other firms. But once Jimmy started interfering with Chuck's business and career regardless, it's hardly out of hand to want it stopped. And even then, Chuck goes out of his way to work with the prosecution to work out a sweetheart plea deal which carries no jail time, nothing on his record, and only his license to practice law. That's a hell of a favorable offer for several felonies committed by a former con artist with an extensive record who, as an officer of the court, not only knows everything he did was wrong but also agreed to be held to a higher standard! I don't consider how "pure" Chuck's motives were, but he bent over backwards to get Jimmy as lenient an outcome as possible.

Though i will readily admit he manipulates Jimmy into (truthfully, of course) confessing all this on tape, but as you point out, not all manipulation is bad, and somehow this is either never brought up by the "Chuck is manipulative" crowd, or is somehow supposed to be bad.

Also, Jimmy is absolutely redeemable. That was the purpose of the ending. He's effectively an addict, who will neve commit to rehab until he hits rock bottom. As it turns out, Kim's self-flagellation life was his rock bottom. If Jimmy's unredeemable, the show is pointless. He could choose to stop any time. What makes Jimmy so tragic (and so horrible) is that he never chooses to. Chuck or no Chuck, Jimmy would not choose to be better until he hit rock bottom. And nothing regarding Chuck would be rock bottom.

[Rynjin]

Chuck's motives always seemed pretty simple to me. "Jimmy's an ******* and I hate him, and if he insists on getting in my way I'm going to remove him from it". Understandable, but a far cry from nobility, which would have been something more like "Jimmy is a criminal, I'm gonna get him caught because it's the right thing to do".

But a character doesn't have to be noble to be in the right.

[Peelee]

Chuck's motives always seemed pretty simple to me. "Jimmy's an ******* and I hate him, and if he insists on getting in my way I'm going to remove him from it". Understandable, but a far cry from nobility, which would have been something more like "Jimmy is a criminal, I'm gonna get him caught because it's the right thing to do".

But a character doesn't have to be noble to be in the right.

Again, Chuck never cared about Jimmy being "in his way". He cared about Jimmy not being a lawyer in his firm, and that was it. Until Jimmy actively interfered in his work, at which point it turned to "shed light on the multiple felonies Jimmy did, which is literally incompatible with being an officer of the court". And, again, dude bent over backwards to spare Jimmy any repurcussions except his law license. I agree it was never because "it was the right thing to do". It was because Jimmy with a law degree was actively detrimental to Chuck. If someone os throwing rocks at you, you don't need "it is morally wrong to throw rocks at people and that's why i want him stopped" as your justification. Nobody will fault you for "he hit me with rocks!" being your reasoning. And yet, for Chuck, it far too often gets represented as "Jimmy was in my way".

If you want to say Chuck did it because Jimmy was in his way, then do what nobody else ever actually does - explain how Jimmy was in his way. Because "he was throwing the metaphorical rocks at me" seems like it really shouldn't be covered under that.

[Rynjin]

Again, Chuck never cared about Jimmy being "in his way". He cared about Jimmy not being a lawyer in his firm, and that was it. Until Jimmy actively interfered in his work, at which point it turned to "shed light on the multiple felonies Jimmy did, which is literally incompatible with being an officer of the court". And, again, dude bent over backwards to spare Jimmy any repurcussions except his law license. I agree it was never because "it was the right thing to do". It was because Jimmy with a law degree was actively detrimental to Chuck. If someone os throwing rocks at you, you don't need "it is morally wrong to throw rocks at people and that's why i want him stopped" as your justification. Nobody will fault you for "he hit me with rocks!" being your reasoning. And yet, for Chuck, it far too often gets represented as "Jimmy was in my way".

If you want to say Chuck did it because Jimmy was in his way, then do what nobody else ever actually does - explain how Jimmy was in his way. Because "he was throwing the metaphorical rocks at me" seems like it really shouldn't be covered under that.

I don't see the material difference between "Jimmy was in his way" and "Jimmy with a law degree was actively detrimental to Chuck".

Someone's presence being actively detrimental to you/your career is the general usage of the phrase "in your way". "Underfoot" perhaps. A pain in the ass, a thorn in the side, it's all the same thing.

You're getting way too caught up in the semantics of the matter like what "manipulation" means or how "in your way" is used when I can see no real difference between our opinions here.

[Peelee]

I don't see the material difference between "Jimmy was in his way" and "Jimmy with a law degree was actively detrimental to Chuck".

Someone's presence being actively detrimental to you/your career is the general usage of the phrase "in your way". "Underfoot" perhaps. A pain in the ass, a thorn in the side, it's all the same thing.

You're getting way too caught up in the semantics of the matter like what "manipulation" means or how "in your way" is used when I can see no real difference between our opinions here.

I see "in his way" as being more or less innocently in the path of someone who won't deviate. Not an active antagonist who is choosing to harm the other. If you want an example, then let's take the film The Foreigner. At no point is Jackie Chan in Pierce Brosnan's way. Pierce Brosnan is going about his business and Jackie Chan is disrupting that. That's not "Jackie Chan is in Pierce Brosnan's way". That is "Jackie Chan is gunning for Pierce Brosnan".

You may see it as semantics. I see it as a wild misreading of what that phrase means. Take that as you will.

[Rynjin]

So when a villain or something says "I will crush all who stand in my way" you take that as a general "I'm going to kill a bunch of innocent people" instead of a direct threat to the people quite literally standing in his way that he will crush them if they won't move?

Or if someone or something is "in the way of your goals" you take that as always pure happenstance? And stating so means that the issue is you won't deviate, not that there's an obstacle? Like, if someone is holding up the line at the supermarket arguing over random nonsense with the cashier, being in the way of you moving on with your day, the fault lies with you (who wants to move), not with the obstacle?

Or somebody parks a card behind you, and it's in your way, the fault lies with you? Etc., etc.

That's an...odd interpretation of the phrase, and one I have never heard anybody else on this Earth hold.

[Peelee]

So when a villain or something says "I will crush all who stand in my way" you take that as a general "I'm going to kill a bunch of innocent people" instead of a direct threat to the people quite literally standing in his way that he will crush them if they won't move?

Or if someone or something is "in the way of your goals" you take that as always pure happenstance? And stating so means that the issue is you won't deviate, not that there's an obstacle? Like, if someone is holding up the line at the supermarket arguing over random nonsense with the cashier, being in the way of you moving on with your day, the fault lies with you (who wants to move), not with the obstacle?

Or somebody parks a card behind you, and it's in your way, the fault lies with you? Etc., etc.

That's an...odd interpretation of the phrase, and one I have never heard anybody else on this Earth hold.

The heroes opposing the world-conquering supervillain are in the way since they want to completely stop the supervillain. Much as the car parked behind you is in your way since it completely stops you. However, Jimmy throwing a wrench in the gears of one hearing for one client is not in Chuck's way, much as Jackie Chan wasn't completely paralyzing Pierce Brosnan in the Foreigner. In both cases, the other could still do their jobs pretty much unfettered (Foreigner breaks the analog a bit here with Jackie Chan bombing offices, but he's only disrupting until he gets the names, at which point even his antagonism, which is not "I must stop him", ends).

If you want to see any and every inconvenience as someone being in your way, that seems massively melodramatic to me, but that might also explain why you haven't heard of anyone else on earth disagreeing with your interpretation. You probably have, but disregarded because they were in your way.

[Zevox]

To toss in my 2 cents as someone who has no skin the main conversation here (I have never watched so much as an episode of the show(s) being discussed), I'm with Rynjin on the phrase "being in someone's way." If someone is impeding a person from doing what they're trying to do, that qualifies as being in their way, whether they're doing it intentionally or not. I have never seen any other sort of interpretation of the phrase, and the one Pelee is proposing seems quite strange to me.

[Rynjin]

Eh, you can keep interpreting this as an all or nothing deal if you want, I guess. Misunderstanding common phrases and then arguing about it on the internet isn't fun to me, but if it is to you, more power to ya I guess. I'm not really interested enough in this discussion to keep getting drug deeper into the mire of semantic bull****tery because I had the gall to try and agree with you on something but didn't phrase it exactly how you wanted.

Feel free to write everyone's posts for them so they don't use words/phrases in a way you don't like I guess?