I can't see how Kim would still be a part of Jimmy's life as Saul. I mean at that point he was no longer lovable scamp Jimmy. He was scumbag lawyer to New Mexico's worst. I can't see her sticking with him when he's like that. Not to mention he had a few women on the side that we saw. I doubt he'd step out on Kim.…

The worst thing about Chuck is that he think that since everything he's done was legal, he's the morally superior out of everyone. But everything he's done has been cruel, vindictive, spiteful, and unethical (not from a legal standpoint, but an moral one). The man is one of the most vile characters I've ever seen.

I kinda want them to part on good terms. Sue me, I want to think at least someone as good and cool as Kim can have a happy ending in the Breaking Bad universe.

Seriously Kim and Ernie are awesome friends. Kim is just super awesome all around, and anyone'd be lucky to have her as a friend/kinda girlfriend. And, we need to take a moment to appreciate how much of a bro Ernie is when he just got fired, and he's more worried about how his actions affect Jimmy.

To be fair do we know Kim is going to have a crappy fate? Maybe her work with Mesa Verde bank may end up requiring her to have to leave, and she and Jimmy may part on good terms. Granted this a very optimistic view, but it's a possibility.

I think that's because the term has been used far too loosely. By that metric the term antihero can cover just about everyone who isn't absolutely perfect so long as they are the protagonist. It degrades the term to near meaninglessness.

I don't see antiheroes as villains at all otherwise they are just villains. Antiheroes have to at least have some sort of noble intention or cause. The difference between and antihero is that the antihero can BECOME a villain if he or she were to go too far.

I don't buy that antihero means villain. Villain protagonists are evil from the get go. Their methods and goals are typically evil. Antiheroes has to have some sort of noble cause or intention. Walter White for example was a show where there was a transformation from antihero (wanting to provide for his family) to…

I knew a girl from grade school who's surname was Ermentrout. Is that close enough?

To be honest I'm not quite sure I buy that. To me it's seemed that both previous seasons were fairly straight forward morality with characters falling pretty squarely into either the good or bad ends of the spectrum. The closest thing to antiheroes in my opinion were the Blumquists.

Unless she was released and then got busted in California I highly doubt she'd go to prison in California.

Ain't no one can drive 55 in a Corvette.

I mean I can understand criticizing this episode, and thinking this season may have some leg work to do to make sure it pays off. But, to accuse the previous two seasons of being empty sounds stupid to me.

OH GOD! Those kids were fucking stupid.

" I’ll fully admit to falling for the show’s novelty in its first season, seeing rich metaphors in its acidic take on the male anti-hero drama that’s dominated prestige television for so long; and I thought last season’s broader scope and willingness to indulge the surreal represented a laudable step forward. "

Always great to hear the Wilson sisters.

It was alright, but compared to the season premieres for both season 1 and 2, this one kinda felt a little weak.

I'm not excited for this show at all. The fact that it's on Freeform fills me with absolutely no faith whatsoever.

Well the CIA doesn't always do what they're supposed to be doing.

Which is fair. I can see that, but I can also see that some of his teachings would have a libertarian leaning as well (For example from Revelations: "He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still"). In truth arguably all economic…