Isn't one of the points of this show, and BB too, that few, or none, are 100% good? If that's true, when do they become "bad guys?"
I was the kid next door's imaginary friend
Yup! It's explored more here than on BB, but both shows (and much of literature and film) is devoted to it.
shareI've seen posts like "Do you still think Jimmy is a good guy?", or those who despise Chuck as the most despicable (though he's pretty law-abiding), and so on. But I wonder, just who are the good guys and bad guys in these two series, if one thinks those distinctions are possible.
Mike, Jesse, Walt, Hank, and others are often thought of as good guys, (at least in comparison to the cartel and Nazi crowd) but they all killed. Some think of Jimmy as a bad guy, but he hasn't taken any lives (personally, that we know of, so far), but has obliquely hinted that some hits might be needed.
Where do you draw the line?
I was the kid next door's imaginary friend
Everyone draws their own line. Personally, I forgive those who weren't trying to hurt others. I forgive those who are contrite and try to make amends. I forgive those who couldn't help themselves. I'll forgive most people, lol.
Motives matter...to me, anyway. A desperate woman who steals to feed her child, I forgive. A rich man who steals to get richer or to hurt someone...harder to do. That kind of thing.
Motives are subjective. Hitler believed he was making the world a better place.
shareVictory is definitely important. Win and the history books will be sympathetic to your motives.
shareHitler believed he was making the world a better place.
But it's exactly the point that he thought doing so would make the world a better place.
This is what people miss about those who are able to perpetrate evil on a grand scale. There's really no way to do it without believing you're doing the "right" thing, or at least the thing that will work best, and without convincing a whole lot of other people that you are. The power of the thing comes precisely from the belief that it's the most right or most practical thing to do. "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil"...
Of course, the reverse is not necessarily true. Not everybody who starts a movement or runs for office to do good for the world is actually evil. I mention it only because so many people seem to have trouble understanding that logic in a matter like this doesn't run in both directions, but in one.
Just wanted to clarify:
Hitler did not want to conquer the world. He wanted to take land he felt was Germany's. He attempted to sue for peace with western allies on several occasions. Many people have no idea how much Hitler was supported by western allies, even after the allies declared war. For example, Dupont made a fuel additive the luftwaffe could not fly without, and thus could have grounded them by not selling it to the Nazis, but they did. Prescott Bush, W's grandfather, lost his bank for funding the Nazis. Ford and GM had war factories in Germany producing was machines for the Nazis(they even sued the US government after WWII for bombing their Nazi factories, and won!). Montagu Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England from 1920 to 1944, advanced the Nazis a loan of about $4 million(~75 million adjusted for inflation). Vickers-Armstrong, the British arms manufacturer, provided Nazis with heavy weaponry. Etc...
Having such a simplistic and distorted view on history is unhealthy for society.
This is something I've expressed to friends and it's always met with a negative response no matter how much I try to explain it. I believe most people if not all people think they're doing the "right" thing. I don't think Hitler woke up every morning thinking, "what evil will I carry out today?" meanwhile perpetrating one of the most evil acts in history. He probably thought more along the lines of, "my worldview is absolute and just, and it's my responsibility to make it real."
Anyone can rationalize or justify any behavior. Usually, it's on a small scale that only affects the individual (ex. I "deserve" a cigarette/fast food/a day on the couch). And we can rationalize or justify other behaviors like cooking meth (Walt), scamming a stranger (Jimmy), or murder (Mike). How much a person supports or is against any one of these characters could be mostly related to how much that person can rationalize a certain behavior (even down to feeling like they like the character). Basically, like you said, it's subjective. And if you really want to get down to it; it's a lower form of thinking to only desire to be "right".
This nuance of the question of good and evil wasn't what I had in mind when I started this thread, but it really does raise a fundamental element in considering my question. There are some whose opinion that it is a pretty black and white, obvious, and objective distinction, whether a person is good or bad.
The array of characters in the BCS/BB world can almost all be shown to have acted in honorable and dishonorable ways, to have shown compassion and ruthlessness, to have caused harm and done good for others. (Even extreme, possibly psychopathic characters like Tuco are seen behaving tenderly toward their loved ones; Jimmy will run scams on strangers, but goes beyond the call of duty in caring for his brother, who resents him. The same can be said for many other characters in both series, at least those whom the show has allowed us to see fully enough to get a more complete picture.)
And, as you said, it's hard to make crystal clear distinctions, if one takes each one's motives into account. An upright lawyer like Chuck might be satisfied to see the letter of the law carried out, though real justice might be denied. Hank can justify extra-legal actions if the end result is thwarting criminals. And on and on. These individuals are doing what appears, to them, to be absolutely necessary.
I'm actually a little surprised that this thread is still alive (not to mention that this show's board is still re-hashing worn-out topics), but many of the commenters on this topic have opened up the thinking about what I think is a fundamental question raised by BCS, the definition of good and evil in our hearts and our culture.
.....
I was the kid next door's imaginary friend
(not to mention that this show's board is still re-hashing worn-out topics)
Amen
.....
I was the kid next door's imaginary friend
Agreed.
Millennial = Homo Sapiens born 1990 or after; Losers who think they know everything but don't
Where do you draw the line?
So far in BCS Hector and Tuco are the only black and white bad guys for me. Everyone else is grey, apart from people like Omar and Ernesto who havent shown enough so far.
On my planet, RoBust. I want to adopt him as my grandpa.
shareI'm with you, danloki. I love Mike, and Mike is a fan favorite for a reason, despite the fact that he's technically a "bad guy." He works for Gus and mows people down. But if he had no heart at all, fans would not love him like they do. That's the thing with BB and BCS. Everyone has a dark side, and no one is totally good. Some are totally bad, though. Just like real life.
shareMike was a corrupt Philly cop who pretty much got kicked out of the force. He stole money, made deals with gangs, and probably took out other gangs for favors or cash. He is by definition, a bad guy.
EDIT: He might be a likeable bad guy. You can still like a guy even though he is a bad guy in movies and tv. But let's not delude ourselves that someone isn't a bad guy when they fall under the definition of a bad guy just because he's likeable.
When did he steal money? I cant remember that bit. I just remember that he was a corrupt cop to stay in favour with the corrupt cops, otherwise they would have killed him like they killed his son. He was between a rock and a hard place. That doesnt make him intentionally bad. Marlon asked where we draw the line. For me, that is my line in the sand. Would I let him babysit my kids, or someone like Tuco and Hector? No denying it - Mike.
shareWhen explaining what happened to Matt, Mike said "You let some things slide and you look the other way. You bust a drug dealer that has more cash than you'll ever earn in a lifetime. Some of it doesn't make it back into evidence, so what? You took a taste. So did everyone else. That's how you knew you were safe. It's like killing Caesar. Everyone's guilty. Matt wasn't dirty. I was. Everyone was in that precinct. That's how it worked. You turn in your buddy, you're screwing yourself. You go along to get along."
share"You let some things slide and you look the other way. You bust a drug dealer that has more cash than you'll ever earn in a lifetime. Some of it doesn't make it back into evidence, so what? You took a taste. So did everyone else. That's how you knew you were safe. It's like killing Caesar. Everyone's guilty. Matt wasn't dirty. I was. Everyone was in that precinct. That's how it worked. You turn in your buddy, you're screwing yourself. You go along to get along."
Lol, and here comes all the defenders trying to justify bad actions with excuses. It's like everything I said went clear over your head.
shareWell, that was exactly what I was trying to say in my post. As I said, yes, he's a bad guy, but we love him anyway. There are varying degrees of bad on BB and BCS, ranging from kleptomaniac Marie to coldblooded Hector. That's part of what I love about the series, that we have to decide what we'll accept from the characters and what we won't. There were no angels on BB, and I don't see any on BCS either.
shareActually there were a few angels: usually children, although Walt's son may be too old to have been technically considered a child. But he was definitely one of the pure innocents.
_________________________________
"I'm sorry, but.." is a self-contained lie.
Walt Jr. wasn't so innocent by the end of BB. He was filled with rage at Walt. In the time period of the show, he was too young to really act out, but he was leaning toward some of the rebellion you see in a 16-year-old, like the fast car, the need for speed. After the humiliation that Walt brought upon the family, it would have been interesting to see where Walt Jr., Skyler, and other traumatized folks like Marie, ended up a few years down the road.
And you're right, ryan, it's hard to think of an innocent in BB who was not a child. Gomie is the only adult main character I can't recall "breaking bad" in some way, and I'll bet some BB scholar could prove me wrong about him.
I was the kid next door's imaginary friend
I remember that, too. Gomie was the only adult who didn't do anything wrong. Of course, we saw almost nothing of Gomie's life, so he probably did something wrong and we didn't see it.
shareGood examples about Walt Jr.--excuse me--"Flynn"! He's a character who is actually fairly complex and doesn't seem to be discussed much (my theory is because he's so whiny and annoying). But he is not just rebellious and sarcastic, and later, viciously telling his father "Why don't you just DIE?".
He is self-absorbed, expects to be waited on (he adores breakfast but never cooks it!), whines about the lack of hot water and demands that his parents let him in on all their secretive doings. When they refuse, he sulks and generally makes himself a pain in the a**!
But there's more: remember the scene in the clothing store (Season 1), when the punks were teasing him? When Walt storms up to them and hobbles one, then stands on his leg, threatening and teasing him, Junior is SMILING happily! I used to think it was pride in good old Dad for standing up for him. But what if it's also joy in another's pain and humiliation? What if HE would probably do the same thing if he were physically able? (I would do it, and I'm not a "bad" person...mostly).
We never get to find out, but he's no "angel", teenage or otherwise, I think. The things he said to Walt in the last eps. were horrible, even if Walt did deserve them.
I also agree that, as far as we see, Gomie is the only decent person in the cast!
There really is no black/white or good vs. bad in this show (or BCS). That's part of its greatness.
Don't get me wrong...
It might be unbelievable,
But let's not say so long
None of that makes him 'bad'. It just makes him an annoying teenager.
How does any of what you said make Junior indecent?
Yeah, there was pretty clear good v bad in the show. It might not have been full on good guys v bad guys but it was pretty clear who was the good guy and who was the bad guy in most situations.
Jesse and Hank are pretty clearly the good guys in the last season. Walt, Uncle Jack, Todd and Lydia were bad.
I think that any discussion of this needs to be held with the knowledge that we all have different definitions of "good" and "bad". When I say "bad" in reference to Junior, I mean that he can be more than just annoying. He blames his mother for almost everything and calls her a b****, never helps with housework, demands to have breakfast cooked for him every day. shows no gratitude for the car they buy him...and so on. Is that bad? Not in the Gus/Walt/Hector way, but it's certainly not considerate or respectful.
Then he turns on Walt and even before he knows his father makes meth, tells him to "go ahead and die" just because Walt doesn't want to go through the suffering of chemo and operations. He's only thinking of HIS feelings, not his father's. Sorry, but in my book, that kid is much more than annoying. He's a total jerk! You don't tell a parent with terminal cancer to "just die already"! If her were my kid, I'd kick him out.
As for "indecent"...when did I claim that? I did not. Hank is indecent, though, with his obscene jokes about "tuggies" and the way he treats Wendy because she's a hooker.
I also disagree that there was a "pretty clear good v bad" in the show. Saul, for example, did a lot of good, saving people from murder (example, sheltering Jesse), though it was outside legal bounds.
I agree that Jesse is one of the good guys, despite his being a murderer (see the gray area there?), but Hank, the supposed "good guy" cop, is a violent, prejudiced, sexist and racist pig who mistreats his wife, insults Hispanics, violates the law (his harassment of Jesse and Mike) and has no qualms about beating Jesse half to death! He deserved to get shot, though not by Jack--it should have been Gomey! OR Jesse.
I followed all the rules...and you followed none of them. And they all loved you more.
Yep, deeper. I know Mike does some bad stuff but I cant bring myself to shove him in the 'just a bad guy' mold because he has shown another side to himself. He's just a really great character. Hector is bad bad, and so is Tuco despite the fact he's sweet to his teeny grandmother. I still like him because I love a crazy villain, but he goes in the bad pidgeon hole for me. Nacho I cant see as bad yet. I would get my car reupholstered by him.
shareI always like the thought you give to questions like this, danoki. And the big question, of course, is what is evil, in essence?
Does much of it exist in our perceptions, or the slice of reality we've been allowed to see? Or are there neater definitions, as Ome wrote earlier?
What if we had as much background on Hector and Tuco as we've had on our "good guys", and characters like Mike or Hank were more peripheral, as the cartel guys are in BB and BCS---would they look like bad guys to us then?
In "Narcos", we get a closer, in depth look at Pablo Escobar, and it blurs the lines, somewhat, about who are good and bad guys. Uncle Sam's War On Drugs was, in fact, an element that made trafficking profitable.
I wonder what the characters in BB and BCS would look like from the other side of the mirror? Seeing how Hector schooled the cousins on the importance of family when they were children definitely gave me a better understanding of their implacable pursuit of Tuco's killer. I wonder what made Hector and Tuco the way they are?
I was the kid next door's imaginary friend
Oh that's interesting, Marlon. I see Escobar in Narcos as the good guy. The same as I saw Che Guevara as the good guy when I read Motorcycle diaries. Would I see any of them as the good guy normally? I dont think so. The same as I wouldnt see George Bush as the good guy. They're all murderers. Bush is the worst.
share"Bush is the worst."
Lets not get stupid huh ?
Why not. We're talking about bad guys, arent we. If I can be lectured about a fictional character I think I can throw a side show clown into the mix.
shareWell said! I love this halo effect that Bush has started to acquire, like so many other dicey and outright horrible leaders, once time passes. Bush is too stupid to really be seen as the puppet master but his buddies Rove and Cheney? Thoroughly bad, if not by definition then by action! How many undercover operatives, for instance, did they get killed or ruin their lives when they outed CIA op., Valerie Plame because her husband wouldn't kowtow to them?
That's evil, in my book. To me, they're right up there with Escobar--maybe worse, since they grew up in a world of privilege and money. You don't have to physically pull a trigger to wound or kill someone. And Plame's case and the other operatives, they were probably mostly American! So much for patriotism as a measure of "goodness".
Don't get me wrong...
It might be unbelievable,
But let's not say so long
I don't care to get into political bickering on these boards, but I'd suggest that one of the reasons that films and TV shows about outlaws are so popular is that so many people feel that they're at the mercy of a small, entrenched, very powerful cadre of political, and more importantly, economic insiders.
The anti-heroes, if you want to call them that, are those who, realizing that the ethos of "work hard and play by the rules" is a sucker's game set out by those in power who make the rules to their own advantage, dare to live outside the law as the "masters" themselves do.
Those rebels, more often than not, are cut down before their time, while the highest-level criminals die in their beds at a ripe old age, rich and un-bothered.
The grunts at the bottom of the heap are allowed to live that outlaw life vicariously, and take some comfort in the thought that at least someone broke out of the cage for a little while.
I was the kid next door's imaginary friend
I'd suggest that one of the reasons that films and TV shows about outlaws is that so many people feel that they're at the mercy of a small, entrenched, very powerful cadre of political, and more importantly, economic insiders.
I agree. In earlier days, you saw people rooting for the bad cowboy, or at least the one who killed others in self-defense. Like Butch Cassidy & Sundance.
Then came the anti-hero linked to conspiracies as in "The Parallax View" and "Three Days of the Condor".
Even in films like "The Godfather", you find yourself siding with murderers, or at least the ones from the Corleone family, because they defy big business (until the last film). Either that or they become a part of it and use it.
This seems true in film as well:
Those rebels, more often than not, are cut down before their time, while the highest-level criminals die in their beds at a ripe old age, rich and un-bothered
Exactly, danloki. Mike has been my favorite character since BB because there is a great deal of pain hidden under his cold, hard exterior. He's not just a killer robot. There's something deeper always driving his decisions and actions. He's a character I'd like to know, if we lived in the BB world. Of course, I'd try to stay on his good side. I agree that Nacho may fall into this category as well. There's more to him than we can easily see, and that's what makes these characters so great.
shareWhat is this circle jerk? This is the most cordial internet conversation I've seen. Mike is a bad guy. Gus is a bad guy. Nacho is a funny looking guy. Taco is a joke of a bad guy. Hector is a scary bad guy. Everyone is a bad guy. Why is this so hard to understand?
You know who isn't a bad dude? Kim. Because she's not a dude. Get it?
Thanks, ry. I'm glad you find this thread cordial. There seem to be a lot of intelligent people giving their opinions, and not getting into name-calling or insults if someone else doesn't agree with them completely, or at all. That's the part of these IMDb chat boards that makes them worthwhile for me. Trying to provoke arguments on the boards is just juvenile attention-seeking, I think we all can agree.
I tend to agree with you that most every adult character on BB and BCS has been corrupted in some way, in varying degrees. Others on the BCS board have talked about "good guys" and "bad guys", as if there was some clear definition that everyone could agree on. I wanted to question that, and I'm happy that you and some others have found it interesting enough to offer opinions.
I was the kid next door's imaginary friend
I've read all the Howard and Chuck hate and those people are insane. I remember back in the day, people were calling Hank a bad guy and Walt a good guy and I couldn't help but scratch my head and wonder if these people were serious or not. I concluded they were not, because if they were serious, they most likely robbed banks for a living.
There are pretty clear cut definitions of what makes a good guy and a bad guy. That definition is usually the one we all go by when we're watching the news. We don't see the bank robber as a Robin Hood. No, only movies turn John Dillinger into Robin Hood. In real life, he was a cop killing, murderous, bank robber. It's great that television can create empathy for characters. But lets all be serious and realize, if we were watching these people on the news, our opinions would be very different than what they are when we watch them being portrayed as sympathetic characters.
Isnt it great, Marlon, that some of us are lucky enough to be able to separate fiction from reality, and live in the free world so are able to interpret how we view characters in a fictional universe who were born out of someone's imagination. I dont think that poster got the memo that the rest of us received advising us that this is not the news, not a documentary, not the real world, but a story. If he wants to view the characters as the Devil and the Dalai Lama, that's fine. Those of us who see something else as the story unfolds are free to do so as well.
Now I think I'll return to the circle jerk he told us we were having so I can get a happy ending.
I was the kid next door's imaginary friend
some of us are lucky enough to be able to separate fiction from reality, and live in the free world so are able to interpret how we view characters
I thought I replied to your comments in a reasonable tone, ryow, and agreed with some of your points. I can understand that you and others might be offended by the glorification of criminals, especially violent ones, in works of fiction. I agree, too, that most of us wouldn't want to have any contact with them in real life.
I suggested elsewhere on this thread that many people do like fiction about those characters because they are frustrated that the mega-criminals who wield so much influence in our world not only go unpunished, but are often lauded as the greatest among us. The underclass needs a channel for their frustration, and some find it in crime fiction.
I'd also suggest that it wasn't your opinions that offended anyone, but the harsh tone. I don't, and won't, get involved in squabbles on these boards. I can't prevent others from doing so, though I'd rather they didn't. But some of them are very, very good at it, and those who engage in trades of insults with them can end up looking very, very foolish.
Take care.
I was the kid next door's imaginary friend
I'm not sure why you keep commenting on my posts, saying what's already been said a dozen times. Have fun, though.
shareHe thinks we're circle jerking while robbing banks, deeper. I dont know why but the imagery of that leaves me quite confused. I can think of more productive things to do while ripping off a bank. 10 points for creativity, though.
shareMy planet too. On my planet Mike is probably the main good guy in the BB universe. I would trust him over everyone else including "good guys" like Hank or Gomez.
shareFor me, calling Mike a "good guy" would be a bit of a stretch, simply because we're supposed to have a low tolerance for people who kill others, though the victims might be widely agreed to have been "bad guys." But I will concede that you know exactly where you stand with Mike.
I was the kid next door's imaginary friend
Isn't one of the points of this show, and BB too, that few, or none, are 100% good?Yep. Mike's speech to Price in Season 1 explained this very well when he called him a criminal. And Price insisted that he was not a bad guy.
Thanks. Any chance you recall the ep title of that speech, Hitokiri? I plan to review S1, but I'd like to take a look at that scene.
I was the kid next door's imaginary friend
Pretty sure that the title was Pimento. (I actually don't pay attention to the titles that much, so "Fring's Back" would never have been something I'd have looked at).
It was definitely the one where Mike also has his infamous Pimento speech earlier in the episode. I always thought Jonathan Banks was great as Mike, this episode sealed it for sure!
I actually liked Price, kind of wish they kept him around some more in Season 2. They really did a great job showing why it's dangerous to "work" with someone like that and I bet if he was working with anyone other than Nacho, he'd have been killed.
Thanks, Hitokiri!
I was the kid next door's imaginary friend
yeap i aggree , there's no such thing , Mike has put it better though in one of his speeches to Jesse...
shareThat's not really a bad thing though.
Many of us may consider ourselves to be good, but there are things we do or support that others consider bad. Not to the level of the show obviously but the point is I like characters that reflect a real perspective. Not all cookie cutter clean or cliche' evil. Many people are shades of grey in the way they live their life. The show has to take this and turn up the volume (it's entertainment after all) but I like the layered approach to characters in Vince's shows.
Yep. Sometimes good people do bad things. That doesnt make them inherently evil. It would be a pretty unrealistic and boring show if the characters were either Mother Theresa or Elizabeth Bathory.
shareYep. Sometimes good people do bad things.Not in Sons of Anarchy! share
Damn, I miss Clay. I still cant believe Kurt fridged Ron Perlman. Now THAT was evil!
Same with Black Sails. There are the bad guy pirates and the bad guy English. I'm rooting for the pirates. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, as they say. And the pirates have better clothes anyway.
Clay was a great villain. However I wish that he just sort of disappeared at the end of Season 4.
They stretched out his storyline so much in Season 5 and later in Season 6 it was pretty pathetic.
And just think... if he had Clay essentially disappear, they could have brought him back later!
I wonder if there was a falling out between Ron and Kurt. That fridging felt very much like a bitch move. He was definitely sent to coventry on set. I remember reading an interview where he didnt say much on it other than he was pissed off.
shareKurt seems like the type to hold grudges, despite hiring all of his friends (and family!) in his productions.
Ron Perlman was one of the best things about SOA, and as much as I hated Clay... you're supposed to hate Clay!!!
I think you're right, that they had a falling out. Maybe Ron had some other offers and wanted out, but was under contract or something. Kurt usually has decent build-ups for characters and such, but seems to get rid of them rather abruptly... and not for suspense like Game of Thrones or 24 did.
Yeah there was just something really fishy about that, like 'you're staying here until your contract is up but you'll be on a different set away from the cast and you'll be given zero lines'. It just felt really weird.
Clay was rotten to the core. I loved that bastard.😭
Oh Stahl Stahl Stahl. Remember her? My god! I miss that wicked bitch.
Stahl was great! My favorite foil for the SONs. And despite everyone's complaints about the actress, I thought she was great in the role.
Besides, how could you not love a character like that who comes in, whips it out, takes over, and next think you know... has the deputy under her desk???
LOL. She was great, both the actress and the character. Phenomenal female villain.
I think she got the same sht that Katey got - all came down to who those women are married to. Just the usual mean spirited crap.
I think it boils down to the fact there are the legal definitions of a bad guy and then there are the moral definitions of a bad guy. That causes Jimmy to toe the line between a legal bad guy but a moral good guy. Chuck is a legal good guy but a moral bad guy.
shareNicely summed up, d.👍
shareI agree, well put.
That still leaves the question, when does someone become a moral bad guy? The legal definitions are more clearly drawn, though not always justly formulated and enforced.
I was the kid next door's imaginary friend
If crime was justified by need it would be the main occupation of the population.
Hollywood loves to dream up situations where it's almost the "moral" act to be a criminal - IE John Q taking a hospital hostage to get his son an operation, Walter White baking/selling drugs to get cancer treatment, etc. They also show Adolf Hitler helping nurse a sick dog back to health to say "he's not all bad" as if this is some sort of a moral revelation. Only in film and literature are their "heroes" and "villains" in the sense that in every single situation (or the main arc) they will be on the side of right or wrong. No one is perfect, no one is "all bad" to everyone all the time. (even bad people love their children/grandkids most of the time) Martin luther king was a notorious womanizer and probably a bad husband, but he bravely led a movement for change that america desparately needed, so he is rightfully celebrated today.
To answer your question specifically - at what point would you not want to be friends with Walter White? When he started manipulating his brother in law in the first episode to show him meth labs, when he started shaking down a former student to go into the drug business with him? (that was the first episode) When he strangled a drug dealer to death rather than calling the police? (3rd episode) To be honest, most of us were fine with all of these action because we liked/sympathized with him as a character, despite the fact they were harmful to society.
Maybe 20-40% of the fans turned on Walter when he watched Jane die, but it actually took him poisoning and hospitalizing an 8 year old boy before the majroity of the audience figured he had "broken bad."
When you fall in love with a character on tv or in a movie, they have to do something beyond terrible for you to consider them suddenly "bad." Obviously, in real life it doens't work that way!
Someone might have a "bad day" and kill a cheating spouse or something but otherwise be considered a pretty good person. But to choose a life of crime and become a career criminal, none are really considered "good" regardless of original motive to get into crime. Juries bear this out.
Yes I believe in "good guys" and "bad guys". Some people are really good people, and others really bad people (the guy who murdered a family, father/mother/son, and their housekeeper, for money for example). Others are mostly good, or mostly bad. Then there is others who are pretty much both, depending on the situation.
shareFrom what I know based on both series etc.... Hector is a jerk...the murderous twins were created by him, he was a horrific influence in their lives when they were kids. Tuco is a egomaniac but he's protective towards his grandma....I actually like Todd even though he's a sociopath. I found his love for Lydia sweet, I liked Lydia too she obviously loved her daughter a lot.
No one seems to be 100% good or bad. People make choices and the actions that follow can maim and cause all sorts of hurt to the folks who are subjected to those actions.
Few things in life are black and white.
I am totally team heisenberg, team jimmy and team mike. I love Gus too.