No one has yet to convincingly explain to me what exactly Walt did that was so horrible
shareI can see you have a nanswer for all events ,
I'm curious what youe excuse is for him having 10 of his employees murdered?
They were going to rat and they never would have been arrested if Jesse hadn’t tried to kill those two drug dealers and Walt hadn’t saved him
share"if Jesse hadn’t tried to kill those two drug dealers"
that was about 3 serires earlier! are we talknig about the same thing?
I'm talking about when Walt had his nazi friends do all those jailhouse hits at the same time
Yes if Walt hadn’t ruined his relationship with Gus to save Jesse then he never would have had to kill him and then those ten guys never would have been arrested, that was all Jesse’s fault
shareThat's because your answer to everything is "well he wouldn't have has to do that if so and so didn't so this." It's because you deflect all the bad Walt has done onto other characters and you're so set in your beliefs that no one is going to change your mind regardless what they tell you. It's not that nobody has convincingly explained things to you, it's that you're stubborn.
shareI find that Beatification of Walt and demonization of literally every other character (okay, he hasn't gone after Holly) to be very strange. I still haven't gotten a decent explanation. Cognitive dissonance?
shareNot true one bit, Walt never harmed anyone who didn't deserve it and the people he sold meth to were going to get it anyways, no one innocent got hurt until Jesse, Hank and Skyler tried to undermine Walt.
shareJust because someone may deserve it, doesn't mean you're the good guy still for harming them. Two wrongs don't make a right.
shareAgreed, when justice and mercy converge, there you will find morality. Revenge is not moral, perpetuating evil is not morally good.
shareBecause of Walt Tuco Salamanca, Emilio, Krazy 8, Gus Fring, Hector Salamanca and the entire Nazi gang are off the street, Walt delivered more justice than Hank ever did and that was what drove Hanks rage, he was jealous and felt emasculated. I’m really glad he died
shareSold meth, let Todd get away with killing a kid, poisoned a kid, orchestrated Gale's murder, got Hank and Gomie killed....
For real, did you SEE the show?
Not only that, but he constantly manipulated Jesse.
shareSkler had an annoying way of presenting herself, but she wasn't wrong. People are stupid. She's "annoying", so she's worse in their eyes. The masse are morons.
sharetrue.
She's only unpopular because the viewers want to watch Walter's definately morally wrong crime spree
She smoked while she was pregnant, she smoked pot in college, she helped Beneke cook his books and she used her children as emotional leverage, those things are far worse than anything Walt ever did.
shareSmoking pot in college is worse than anything Walt does? You're joking right? That right there invalidates your whole argument. Walt literally let's Jane die because he's selfish and she was getting in the way of his illegal activities.
Sure Skylar did some questionable things throughout the show, but nothing she did directly resulted in anyone dying.
Walt had no obligation to save Jane and it's her own damn fault for shooting heroin, she should have been nicer to Walt earlier and unfortunately for her karma caught up to her.
Walt didn't do anything that directly resulted in anyone dying either.
You're seriously lying to yourself if you think Walt hasn't directly killed anyone. Not only that, but he's indirectly killed even more. He literally kills someone in the very first episode. Also, letting someone die when you could've saved them is evil. "She should've been nicer," is the dumbest excuse I've ever heard. Here's the list of all the people Walt has directly and indirectly killed.
https://breakingbad.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_killings_by_main_characters
That was self defense, Emilio and Krazy 8 were going to kill both Walt and Jesse. Walt saved Jesse's life literally in the very first episode.
Walt had no legal or moral obligation to help Jane, it was Jane's fault for shooting heroin and maybe she should have been nicer to Walt.
Walt never directly nor indirectly killed anyone.
EDIT: Your list doesn't contain anyone who wasn't a violent drug dealer aside from Andrea (Jesse was responsible for her death), Jane (Jane was responsible for her own death) and the people on the planes (Donald Margolis was responsible for their deaths). I think you need to man up and quit trying to blame others, it's very immature and cowardly. Your list even includes Gale, uhhhh that was all Jesse, he's the one who shot Gale in the face.
As far as Gale goes, Walt would have murdered Gale, came up with the plan to murder Gale, and Jesse only killed Gale because Walt was immobilized. He didn't pull the trigger, but he planned it and would have done it, so I don't think it's fair to say it was all Jesse.
shareAnd Jesse was the reason why it was necessary to kill Gale so yes that is on Jesse. Also Gale was a meth cook so my sympathy level for him is rather low. Also his element song is annoying and stupid, people who like chemistry also like other things.
shareEven if it was in self defense, if you watched the show at all, Walt is still directly responsible for killing a handful of people.
shareWho did he kill that didn't deserve it?
shareWhether they deserve it or not isn't the question. The question is did he or did he not directly kill people? The answer is yes, he directly killed people.
Without him getting involved in that world at all, he never would've gone that far. "But he had to for his family to set them up financially in case he died." No he didn't. He was offered help from the Hank and Marie if I'm remembering right as well as Elliot and Gretchen. He kicked off all the bad shit that ended up happening. You can say others drove him to do things so he was always in the right, but he's the one who chose to enter that world or crime. He didn't have to. But instead of taking help, he indulged his pride and let it get in the way. Of he really was thinking of his family, he would have put aside his pride and taken the help that was offered to him. I could understand if he took the help and it still wasn't enough to cover medical expenses so he turned to cooking meth, but that's not what happened.
If he really cared for his family enough, he wouldn't have let his pride get in the way of accepting help from friends and family. He's actually a very insecure character because of it.
Yeah, he starts out super-repressed, and then opens up and takes control of his life, but he's still very prideful and, as you say, insecure.
I find it's often the people with the most swagger who are the most insecure.
Plus, motivation or circumstances don't dictate a factual event. Say somebody's walking down the road, minding their own business, and a goon jumps out of an alleyway to mug them. In the scuffle, the own-business-minder gets the goon's knife away from him and then stabs the goon. Self-defense. We're not looking at a murderer; a bad person; or a violent, nasty piece of work, but that person would *categorically* have directly killed somebody.
Yes he did kill some people but it wasn’t anyone who didn’t deserve it. And Gretchen and Elliot never would have been able to get Walt the money he needed, Walt did the only thing he could and he provided for his family. A man always provides for his family even when he’s not appreciated
shareDid you see the size of Gretchen and Elliot's house? Not only would they have been able to help him pay for the brunt of his medical care, but Elliot offered him a job at the company that Walter helped start. He could've helped his family from that, could he have not?
Again, by the end he admits it wasn't about his family and that he did it because he liked it. Not only that, but his family is arguably worse off by the end of the series.
He had other options, making meth was not the ONLY thing he could do.
No way they ever would have gotten the money they needed from Gretchen and Elliot, and Walts family was worse off because of Hank, he actively tried to destroy the family so he could be alpha male, it’s a good thing he died and he died knowing Walt was better than him.
shareIf Gretchen and Elliot gave Walt money, as well as Walt taking the job at Gray matter, he wouldn't have had a problem with his medical debt. Would he have made money as fast as he did cooking meth? Probably not, but he still would've handled his debt responsibly.
Again you just maintain that everything is everyone else's fault and that everything Walt did was because he HAD to. That's bullshit and you know it. Without Walt being involved with the manufacturing of meth, his family wouldn't be worse off at the end of the show regardless of Hank. I could just as well say Hank only did what he did because of Walt. Walt chose to act outside of the law and that's what destroyed his family. You can't fault Hank for that.
- He only sold meth to people who were going to get it anyways
- If he stopped due to Drew Sharpe's death then Drew would have died in vain
- It's Jesse's fault that Brock got a tummy ache and honestly Jesse has no room to be virtuous because he betrayed Walt and palled up with Gus A CHILD KILLER!!!
- Gale's murder is also Jesse's fault, if Walt hadn't had to save him then it never would have been necessary to kill Gale, also who is the one who actually killed Gale? It sure wasn't Walt, Walt was at the laundry at the time, hmmmmm.................
- Hank and Gomie's murder was their own fault and Jesse's, if Jesse hadn't ratted then they never would have been out in the desert to begin with, also Hank tried to destroy his own niece and nephew, he faced the consequences of his own actions.
- Jesse should have been manipulated, Walt only "manipulated" Jesse to save his life, Walt was Jesse's guardian angel, if it hadn't been for Walt then Jesse wouldn't have made it past the first episode.
"If he stopped due to Drew Sharpe's death then Drew would have died in vain."
Stop it.
That's absolutely correct, Drew Sharpe would have died in vain because that would mean Holly and Junior wouldn't get the money they needed and they would end up in the poor house.
shareHoly cow, no kidding. That's gotta be some kinda new level of victim-blaming.
shareIf he stopped just because Drew was killed then everything he did would have been for nothing. I'm not blaming Drew but at the same time turning himself in would have made his death meaningless.
shareThat's just not true.
First, because I was speaking to your point, "If [Walt] stopped due to Drew Sharpe's death then Drew would have died in vain." Drew did die in vain. It was Walt's vanity he died for.
Second, because Walt had pulled off some insane levels of crime up until that point and was poised to make money and get the heck out. In fact, there was a deal shortly thereafter that Walt could have taken to collect enough cash for him and his family and he could have bailed. Did he take it? Nope.
Also, Walt could have quit, not just turn himself in. Cash in his chips. He didn't. He barely gave Drew a second thought. Almost certainly no sincere ones of remorse.
Finally, a re-iteration of point one, but address that last phrase: Drew's death was meaningless. It only saved criminals from upping their criminal empire.
If Walt gave up then his family never would have gotten the money so Drew absolutely would have died in vain, Walt owed it to Drew to press on and not make his death meaningless.
That's because the deal wasn't for enough money, he needed more than that, 5 million wouldn't cut it
Walt was clearly upset about Drew but he also realized that cashing out would have made his death meaningless, he honored Drew's memory by continuing.
Walt owed it to Drew to not hire a psychopath who shot him. Walt owed Drew life.
5 million wouldn't cut what? "Seven hundred and thirty-seven thousand. That's what I need."
But suddenly more than six times that amount wouldn't be enough? That argument wouldn't hold water if there was a bucket attached.
Walt didn't know Todd was a psychopath.
He needed more than 5 million, again Walt was out of his depth when he said 737
Why more than 5 mil?
The median household income in the USA in 2010 (BB ran 08-13, so 10 felt like a reasonable number) was $50,046. Median in Albuquerque today (which is higher) is $47,413, but heck, let's go with the higher number. Walt wanted to support his family, so let's say he wanted to do that for forty years. I'm getting $2,001,840, how 'bout you?
Okay, let's say we double it. The family will have about $100,000 per annum for forty years, not counting any accounting Skyler wants to get up to, or help from Hank and Marie. I'm now coming up with $4,003,680.
So how are you coming up with *more than* five million?
Isn't 9 million more than 5 million? If they have 9 million then they won't have to stress over things they might have to if it was only 5 million.
shareYes, nine is more than five. If they can't survive on five million dollars, that says a lot about them. You just said, "[Walt]needed more than 5 million," but "...they won't have to stress over things..." is not "need". And again: five million is more than six times the median income (roughly) for *forty years*.
This is clearly not a case of need.
This is why some people are against series and movies that glorify bad men (it's always men; there could never be anti-heroines)
shareKilling Mike? With Walt you have a long list of things he did that were disgusting.
shareMike was a murderer and he wouldn't give Walt the names.
shareSo that makes killing someone ok?
shareIs the world a better place without all of the people Walt killed?
shareAnswer the question. So because of that, that justifies killing Mike?
shareMike's death was real tragic. He did some rotten things, but he was a good guy, head on his shoulders, kept priorities straight, lived by a code, and got hammered by a sidewinder missile named Heisenberg.
In a lot of ways Mike was Walt without the ego. Not quite the brainpower or drive, but a cooler, steadier hand. If Walt had listened to Mike more, his empire might have lasted longer.
Couldn't have said it better myself. The whole point of the show was Walt's descent into darkness.
shareYou said it!
To me, that's the tragedy of it, too, because Walt has such wonderful potential. Imagine what he could have done with his acumen if he had applied it creatively and passionately towards a worthwhile goal.
One of the things that really strikes me is the unspoken history between himself and Elliot and Gretchen. Whatever broke up Gray Matter broke Walt. I think (though I don't *know*, of course) that Walt and Gretchen had a thing which was maybe somewhere between boyfriend/girlfriend and a flirtation, but Elliot got in the way of that and Gretchen went with Elliot. Walt, being Walt, kinda blew up at the "betrayal" and responded in his ego-centric Walt way by rage-quitting the company, muttering to himself that they'd be sorry.
They weren't, Gray Matter took off, and Walt was self-flagellating ever since. He condemned himself to marry unambitious, overbearing Skyler and to being a high school teacher as "punishment". He pretended he was happy with the simple things rather than putting his neck out there again. He could have found a business-minded person to give him a shot at being a lab head. Of course he could, he had that "contributed to a Nobel Prize" plaque - that would have cache. But he wanted to be big-man and own the company and he was bitter, so he just let it fester.
If only he had set his ego down for two minutes, seen a shrink for six months, and hit the job market, he could have had a much happier, more fulfilling life.
Excellent analysis! Yes Walt never truly got over the Gretchen. It was the ultimate betrayal to him because not only did she get over him she lived the life that he deep down always wanted. Walt to me is such an excellent character because he is the example of untapped potential. We have all seen those types of people that are too smart to be doing the profession they are doing. Instead though they decide to play the safe rout and once your life has passed you by you are now resentful for your mundane life. Everyone can relate to that in one way or another, which is what in my opinion makes Walt such a compelling character even though he became evil.
shareMy second and third viewings of the series really brought out the Gray Matter stuff. There is *so* little of it, but it seems to be one of the biggest motivators to Walt's character and his change. It explains his ego issues, his megalomania, why he needs to do everything himself (scorning "charity"), his anger and resentment - the whole nine yards comes down to this great path he was on and the lousy version of life he slumped into.
It's one of the reasons I find this chain reaction of causality, being discussed all over this thread, so strange, because the seeds of evil were planted in Walt when he planted them before the series even started. He is the sower of his own destruction. He's clearly to blame for his actions, directly and indirectly, because he's the one who lit the fuse.
And, yes, Walt's character is super-compelling and why I root for him even after I started thinking of him as a villain (post-Jane, basically). They do a great job in the opening episode of stacking the deck against him. You get why this dude needs change and wants to take control of his life. He's up against nag Skyler and manly Hank and he just can't take being Beta anymore.
Breaking Bad truly was a great character study. I must give credit to everyone involved it truly was a series I will always remember and revisit. You are correct it really does showcase why his ego got out of control.
He did it to himself. It is easy to blame your own unhappiness on other it takes a big person to admit to their own wrongdoings.
Oh no you can totally see why he feels the way he does. A safe boring mundane life while constantly being emasculated by your brother in law.
I've been talking a lot of Star Wars and Breaking Bad lately and it occurs to me that Walt's arc is the arc Anakin should have had, but didn't. Breaking Bad finesses Walt's journey and Anakin's is like blunt force trauma.
It's not a question of a long series on TV vs. "just" three movies, either, because I've also been talking Godfather with some people and Michael Corleone gets a "I'm not involved" to "new Godfather" arc that is full and satisfying in *one* film (okay, it's three hours long, but still).
But back to Walt...
Yeah, he's completely relatable, yet entirely reprehensible. He's engaging and sympathetic while being totally repugnant and evil. This is the majesty of Breaking Bad.
Yep I agree on Star Wars. Anakin should have felt like a descent where as it felt like as you said a blunt force trauma. In order for the audience to care about a character slipping into darkness we have to sympathize with them on some level. Walt may be evil but we can all relate to living a mundane life and dreaming for something bigger, but being resigned to a life of mediocrity. That is relatable.
Oh no it can be done, now the advantage to a tv series is you have much more time. However as you pointed out even though Godfather is long, it can be done in one film.
Yep Vince Gilligan truly crafted something special with Walt.
Amen to that. Breaking Bad is truly a great show. My allegiances shift every time I think of "what are my favourite TV shows," but Breaking Bad always makes the list somewhere.
shareYou do realize Mike was going to kill Jesse and he was in bed with the biggest meth dealer in the southwest?
shareAnswer my question first son.
shareFirst I am not your son, second I asked first.
shareI’m simply talking to you the way you deserve to be talked to and do what I say and answer the question
shareWhy do I deserve to be talked to that way?
shareBecause you seem to not understand what you’re talking about and you seem like the kind of person who doesn’t take responsibility for their own bad decisions
shareI asked questions to which you did not answer. You responded with questions. You sure it is me who does not know what they are talking about? What bad decisions of mine are you referring to random internet user online? Do you know my personal life's story?
shareI will be happy to answer your questions when you man up and answer my question.
shareWhy when I asked the questions first? When you are asked a question first you answer and then the conversation continues from there. Walt was the one who broke laws. Just because you are in a difficult spot does not excuse the actions Walt would carry on to do.
shareI get that he broke the laws but it was for a good reason, he destroyed his own reputation for the welfare of others, he’s a hero. Hank however only cared about himself and was willing to abuse children to get what he wanted .
It seems you aren’t smart enough to get this little man
He shouldn't have broken the law. Anyone can try and justify why they broke a law it does not make it ok. Someone who robs a bank can say I was struggling to pay my bills and feed my family therefore that is why I robbed the bank... Does that justify their decision to rob the bank and would they be considered a hero?
Nice insult, not once have I insulted you but those who can't debate rationally resort to insults.
I agree he shouldn't have broken the law, but it was to provide his family with the money that they needed. He destroyed his own humanity for the welfare of people who couldn't fight for themselves and that makes him a hero.
I didn't insult you, I simply spoke to you the way you deserve.
Then it stops there. So then you just admitted Walt was wrong in breaking the law which implies he had fault in his actions which showcases he is not innocent. Again that does not give someone a free pass to break the law because they were trying to provide for their family. If someone robbed a bank that had cancer and was trying to provide for their family does that mean the law and everyone would say you know what they are a hero and forget about that person's wrongdoing? Nope they would get jail time for breaking the law. If you allow a person to have a pass for breaking the law then it becomes a slippery slope.
Yes you did. You said I was not smart enough to understand it. Which is you taking a shot at my intelligence. Notice I have not done that to you. Apparently people are not allowed to disagree with you. Why do I deserve to be insulted or belittled?
I don't condone dealing drugs but I understand why Walt did it and he did it for a good reason. He loved his family and Jesse so much that he even destroyed his entire reputation in order to protect them. He plunged his hands into the filth to keep everyone else's clean, that is beyond noble and that is why Walt is the hero. He is the hero they deserved but not the one they needed. He was the one who made the choice that no one else could make, the right choice, and that was the whole point. One day yes he would have to answer to the laws he broke but not to that scumbag Hank, but to his family and he did.
Again I did not insult or belittle you, I merely spoke to you on your level which is what you are supposed to do. If I'm speaking to a mentally disabled person I am not going to use big words or advanced vocabulary which wouldn't make any sense, same situation here.
Simply because you understand why someone did something does not negate or make what they did acceptable. I completely disagree with everything you said. Walt was a selfish egotistical arrogant man. He settled for a mundane life and was unhappy. If he did not want that mundane safe bland life he should not have married Skylar. Your Batman parallels could not be more off.
Vince Gilligan the creator of the show considered Walt to be an awful human being. Walt openly admitted to Skylar that he did it for himself. He lied to himself by saying that he did it for his family when in reality that could not be further from the truth, as proof by his own admission. Vince Gilligan's words have some weight I mean he is the creator/writer of the show after all. Apparently you are the one who did not grasp the writer's intent. Yet you claim I am the one who did not get it.
Yes you did. You said I was not intelligent enough to understand it, which is an insult. Notice I have not sunk to your level because I can rationally debate.
It makes all the difference, Walt was willing to sacrifice his own humanity for the greater good, that is about the most noble thing a man can do. There comes a point where the rules are not weapons anymore they are shackles, all they do is let the bad guy get ahead and there comes a point where you face a moment of crisis and when you do I hope you have a friend like Walt, to plunge his hands into the filth so that you can keep yours clean. Walt was the family's and Jesse's guardian angel, he was willing to make the hard decisions, the right decisions that no one else could. He saw a beautiful city and a brilliant people rising from the abyss, he sees the lives for which he lays down his life peaceful, useful, prosperous and happy. He holds a sanctuary in their hearts and the hearts of their decedents, generations hence. It was a far far better thing that he did than he's ever done and it's a far far better rest that he goes to than he has ever known. He sees the generations
That is one interpretation and I respect it but I have another interpretation.
It's not an insult, it's just me meeting you at your level. I'm sorry you felt that way.
No it does not, it simply makes you understand why someone did something, The motivation behind the crime. Also yeah sorry but no Walt is not some noble man like you are trying to claim. I do not need a friend like Walt, and I speak for most in saying you do not want someone like that anywhere near your life. If he was so concerned for Jesse he would not have aided in illegal activity. He would have seen that performing in illegal activity is destructive to someone so young. That type of lifestyle only brings sadness and tragedy.
I will stick with Vince Gilligan's interpretation over yours. The fact that you think Walt is this saint is actually rather disturbing. You speak of him as if he truly gave his life for a great purpose... Which means Gilligan's intent went right over your head.
Apology refuted. You knew that was an insult do not be silly.
It absolutely does, Walt destroyed his own reputation and humanity for others, that is the most honorable and brave thing a person can do. He went down in a blaze of glory and he will forever be remembered as the man who saved his family and his former student Jesse. Jesse was already dealing meth before he met Walt, there wasn't much Walt could have done to get him out but he did save him at least 8 times during the series, that's not just a friend that's a guardian angel. He was a silent guardian, a watchful protector.
That's your own opinion whatever
Geez you can't even accept an apology with any kind of gratitude? I'm only trying to help you kiddo.
Sorry but no. I can't ever get behind that way of thinking. Walt is nothing but trash in my book.
Yep and same to you. The writer's word has more weight than yours ever will.
Calling me kiddo or insulting my intelligence is not a good start to a sincere apology.
I think by the end of the show, Walt's gone evil, or almost to the end and then he pulls back in the finale, at least a bit. I wouldn't say he's nothing but trash, but he's pretty reprehensible for a lot of it.
Man, those weren't even close to apologies, were they?
True I guess he did gain a tiny molecule of humanity before the end, but he still became a rather disgusting person.
Yeah it was probably the most piss poor apology I have ever seen which is why I rejected it.
He was a horrible human by the end. For me, personally, I think he did redeem himself at the end. I think it's to do with his trajectory. He comes clean with Skyler, admitting his evil-ness and the horror he brought down on the family. He chokes down his ego (for basically the first time since working the car wash) and lets Elliot and Gretchen be perceived as heroes for saving his family. It's his money and that's important to him, but I get that, and he knows that they'll get the glory, if there is glory to be had. Then, finally, he forgives Jesse and recognises how his actions nearly killed and crippled that kid.
So, while he hasn't made up for the murders and mayhem (how could you? Drew alone...) he was repentant and was making the sacrifices necessary to be a better person. It wouldn't surprise me if his next move, had he lived, would have been to turn himself in.
As far as I can tell they weren't even really apologies. But, who knows, they might have been intended well. I'm not a mind-reader.
Well it sounds like you don't fully grasp this show, Walt was always the hero.
That's still your own opinion.
Again I didn't insult your intelligence and I'm sorry you don't understand this show and I'm sorry you can't accept good advice when it's given to you, little man.
Not according to the writer Vince Gilligan or my personal interpretation.
Yep and I never said otherwise.
Yes you did. How do I not understand the show when I interpret it the same way the creator/writer did? You are literally saying your interpretation is correct and the writer's is wrong. You are saying this as if your interpretation is fact.
Again this is all open to interpretation and I disagree with you 100%
You clearly showed that you don't understand the movie, junior. Maybe you should stop posting and quit embarrassing yourself. Go stick with that little Lord of the Rings movie.
That is fine but if it is all up to interpretation than I can not be considered wrong for my interpretation. You were the one who said clearly you did not understand the film. That implies that my interpretation was wrong. So which is it? If my interpretation was wrong that means the writer is also wrong. If it is all up to interpretation than no one is right. It can't be both ways.
Here you go again so then my interpretation was wrong then? I thought you said it is all up to interpretation? Also Breaking Bad is a tv show not a movie.
And that's fine but understand I am going to challenge you on it and you need to not get all pissy pants just because I see things differently than you do.
I believe your interpretation is wrong, I very much disagree with you.
Strawman I never said Breaking Bad was a movie.
That is fine but do not tell me my interpretation is wrong, which you attempted to do. You may not have directly said it but you implied it by saying I did not understand the show.
And I disagree with your interpretation. So right back at you.
Your exact quote.
You clearly showed that you don't understand the movie, junior. Maybe you should stop posting and quit embarrassing yourself. Go stick with that little Lord of the Rings movie.
From my viewpoint your interpretation is wrong, I'm sure from your viewpoint mine is wrong.
Good for you I don't care.
Right stop watching Breaking Bad and just watch your little Lord of the Ring movie instead. Please show me where I asserted that Breaking Bad was a movie??? If you can't then you need to man up and admit your strawmaned me, kiddo.
Lol that is just it though I never said you were wrong, I disagreed. There is a difference. You attempted to say an interpretation was wrong.
Good I am glad you are finally getting it.
You said you did not understand the movie go stick with that little LOTR movie instead. Which implies I was not grown up enough to understand Breaking Bad therefore I should go and watch LOTR. Which in the quote shows you called Breaking Bad a movie. No strawman, you simply can not read or are playing dumb.
And I do think it's wrong kid. Please show me where I ever said it wasn't a matter of interpretation? All I did was post my interpretation and you came on here and pitched a fit like a toddler in Bi-Lo who's mommy won't buy him a candy bar.
"You said you did not understand the movie go stick with that little LOTR movie instead. Which implies I was not grown up enough to understand Breaking Bad therefore I should go and watch LOTR. Which in the quote shows you called Breaking Bad a movie. No strawman, you simply can not read or are playing dumb."
There you go, it was all an assumption you made and something I did not assert therefore it is a strawman. You have not proven that I said Breaking Bad was a movie. I expect an apology.
So then when I disagreed with your interpretation why did you get defensive and say well it is my interpretation and it is all up to interpretation? If that is the case then neither one of us can be wrong. So again which is it?
Nope you implied it. When someone implies something it is not an assumption you just need to read between the lines. So no not an assumption an observation.
You are not getting an apology for something I did not do.
Because I disagreed with you interpretation, LOL and I never got defensive, in fact this is my thread and you are the one who took the time out of your life to post on here.
Please show me where I "implied" it and I want objective, accurate data, not your assumption, right now all I have is your assumption.
You absolutely did it and I expect an apology. It's the least you can do.
I feel like I'd have a more intelligent discussion with moviefanatic and trust me that is the worst insult I can give you.
Okay then I am not wrong and neither are you. Next time do not say I do not understand something simply because my interpretation was different.
Read your quote again. I already cited it once. You said clearly you did not understand the movie. Which movie are you talking about? You then say go watch your LOTR movie instead. Which means you are saying Breaking Bad is above my intelligence level and are saying LOTR is for those who are less intelligent. In that you called Breaking Bad a movie.
But I don't think you understand it so I will continue to say it.
Show me where in the quote I said that Breaking Bad was a movie and no assumptions or "implications" this time. If you can't show it then you owe me an apology.
I wasn't talking about a movie, I said don't watch Breaking Bad just watching LOTR, I said LOTR was a movie not Breaking Bad you genius.
Interesting by claiming that you are saying Gilligan also does not understand it either then. So apparently you know more than the writer himself does.
Already did.
You said you did not understand the movie. Which movie did I not understand? You then said go watch LOTR instead. Which means you were not referring to LOTR you were referring to another movie. Which was it?
Another strawman, I never said that, I said I disagree with him but I never said he was wrong nor understood the character.
No you didn't. All you gave me where your assumptions.
I did not say that, I said you didn't understand Breaking Bad and that you should just watch the Lord of the Rings movie instead, you know it is possible to turn off a TV show and watch a movie instead, LOLOLOLOL. I have King of the Hill on right now but I can easily turn that off and watch the Godfather ha.
His interpretation was the same as mine. So if I do not understand it than neither does he.
Nope read what you wrote again.
So then what movie did I not understand then? You said I did not understand the movie which one was it?
I never said that, show me the quote little boy.
Show the quote or apologize for the strawman
Show me where I said you didn't understand a movie, as I remember I refereed to LOTR as a movie but not Breaking Bad. Unless you can provide the quote then you owe me another apology.
You said my interppretation which is the same as Gilligans was wrong.
I cited it once not doing it again.
You openly said clearly you did not understand the movie little boy. Are you blatantly lying now?
I said no such thing and I have been very consistent in my position that it's a matter of opinion. You owe me an apology for your strawman. Please show me the quote where I referred to Breaking Bad as a "movie", I referred to LOTR as a movie and I said it was asuitable alternate to you instead of watching BB but I never said BB was a movie. Again I can turn off King of the Hill and put on the Godfather, I can transition from a show to a movie if I damn well please.
The more you talk the more you sink your own ship, You aren't even up to the level of moviefanatic and that is beyond pathetic.
You should try meth. You'll get all the convincing you claim you need.
share[deleted]
Right but that was Skyler's fault, if Skyler hadn't been using the children as emotional leverage that Pizza would not have been on the roof.
share