avclub-fc83ad3d76e063f48fb8a0c5a10a4e01--disqus
rainbowsheeps
avclub-fc83ad3d76e063f48fb8a0c5a10a4e01--disqus

It's hard to argue with that, since it's a subjective experience. Though I agree there's a certain ugliness to it, maybe - though I tend to think of it more like verisimilitude, to some extent, like a rawness that makes it feel more immersive - but there's quite a lot of beauty in it, too. New Mexico may be a desert,

I think the question is, why haven't you watched Breaking Bad? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but curious if you think it's maybe not your thing?

If you're the sort of person that wants to defend burning people who are sick on the off chance you won't get sick yourself, then maybe uh, stay away from me, small children, fuzzy animals, and pretty much anything that breathes.

Eh… when Carol didn't shoot the redhead woman once the redhead started shooting at them, that was pretty lame, and didn't jive with what I've seen of Carol so far. This is the same woman that burned two people to death that were kind of sick just for good measure to try to spread an illness, and a woman who shot a

Yeah, I think that was perhaps the most, uh… surprising? Disappointing? Turns in the show. It seemed relatively out of left field despite building up to it.

That's one of the silly elements of it, but it's not much more crazy than what happens in many blockbuster movies, basically, is what I mean. I certainly see why that's aggravating to those who have a fondness for the Star Trek series where the characters are scientists/explorers/whatever and something like that

I believe we have reached an accord.

I have to admit that I don't actually have much invested in Star Trek as a series at all. I watched, uh, the one with Picard when I was a kid and found it somewhat interesting, but also sometimes boring and too soap operatic for me. These current movies - I don't hate, really. It's clear they're going for more "Star

I think you've got something there. This reminds me of that stint he did recently, which was linked here, on a Korean(was it Korean…?) show with marshmallows and pillow fights or whatever? It cements the idea that he does, in fact, give it his all, even in the silliest (or especially in the silliest?) of circumstances.

That's true. He's in a lot of stuff I don't care about, but at the same time, I still kind of like him and think it'd be cool to have a drink with him, and sometimes he's in things I like.

That's fair enough. I don't know that I think the Mike stories (this episode, or Five-O) are for nothing - I think they're telling a compelling story, and the acting, writing, etc. is all there. I just think it's a simpler story than the others. The motivations are a bit more linear, for instance - he wants to make

Ah thanks, I didn't realize there might be a pattern of misappropriation, but it feels kind of disingenuous to have to argue against things I didn't even say repeatedly.

I'm not sure what you're playing at, because you're greatly, greatly misreading the words that I'm typing, OR wrongfully attributing words I didn't type to me, for some reason. I'm being pretty direct and forceful here, and I'm sorry if it's rude,
but I think it's pretty necessary. It feels a bit like you're trying to

I agree that it's quite lame when actors say they see the goodness in the villains they play. Maybe, to some extent, it's true, but it's not really interesting, either. It'd be far more interesting if they discussed how they related to the selfish and violent (and whatever else) impulses the character had as

No no, I'm not "ignoring" anything. I basically said it in my previous response - it's the means, not the end, that matters in law. I never said anything about other lawyers being good guys, or not doing the wrong things - I even argued that a murderer can get off free if the rules of law aren't followed closely

Ehhhhhhhh……

Man, I forgot he was on Community…

"and the odd inflection in his voice that suggest an obsessive/compulsive personality disorder."?

Well, in law, the ends don't justify the means, no. I think that's what the other commenter was saying. Law is about precedent and practice. That's why it's called a "practice" - what you do is what matters. The ends are very much a result of the procedural operations of how you can get there. Even if there's

I disagree with this. I also think the show suggests it disagrees with you. Mike is clearly presented with a plan that's just as viable as the one that he actually executes, albeit he has to kill Tuco. Mike instead goes far out of his way to execute a plan that involves no murder, only to have Nacho pay him half the