# Better Call Saul S01E07 3/16/15 "Bingo"



## bsnelson (Oct 30, 1999)

Down go the Kettlemans! 

I don't get how Jimmy was thinking that his "retainer" would be enough to get into that fancy office space. Even if Wexler was able to bring clients from HHM (and, of course, if she agreed to come over), it seems like too much money. 

Another great progression of the relationship between Jimmy and Mike - they're really getting intertwined with each other now. 

Still loving this show!

Brad


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Loved watching Mike at work.

Mrs. Kettleman was really nuts.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Really wanted to see Mrs. Kettleman go down. They are both arrogant crooks but she did all of the crazy talk.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

Now that we have a great prequel to BB, after a few years maybe we can get a prequel to BCS with Mike being the focus of that series. I could see that working.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

This episode was only "meh" for me. I didn't dislike it, but it really didn't do much. Maybe I'll give it another watch.


----------



## Jolt (Jan 9, 2006)

Anyone notice anything about the mugshots on the wall? I figured there was something there but couldnt figure it out.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> Loved watching Mike at work.
> 
> Mrs. Kettleman was really nuts.


I was waiting for Madam Kettleman to tell whipped Mr. Kettleman that he could do the 30 years.

"We'll call the police!"


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Jolt said:


> Anyone notice anything about the mugshots on the wall? I figured there was something there but couldnt figure it out.


One guy who was wanted was in the men's room with Jimmy!

I'll bet that they were all BCS crew members.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Jolt said:


> Anyone notice anything about the mugshots on the wall? I figured there was something there but couldnt figure it out.


I think the point of it was the visual thing with the camera going down the wall from wanted poster to wanted poster to wanted poster to Jimmy. Perhaps implying that he's turning into one of them?


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

bsnelson said:


> Down go the Kettlemans!
> 
> I don't get how Jimmy was thinking that his "retainer" would be enough to get into that fancy office space. Even if Wexler was able to bring clients from HHM (and, of course, if she agreed to come over), it seems like too much money.


Office wasn't that nice - looked to be about 3000 square feet - figure a per sq ft cost of say 25/ft (which is likely high in that area) and it's only about $7000/month + triple nets. so figure $7500/month, $8k tops.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

pjenkins said:


> Office wasn't that nice - looked to be about 3000 square feet - figure a per sq ft cost of say 25/ft (which is likely high in that area) and it's *only about $7000/month* + triple nets. so figure $7500/month, $8k tops.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I inferred the last scene to be Jimmy kissing the fancy office goodbye but OTOH I thought maybe he had already signed the lease and was puzzling through that.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Cearbhaill said:


>


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

That's not expensive for office space


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Jolt said:


> Anyone notice anything about the mugshots on the wall? I figured there was something there but couldnt figure it out.


It reminded me of some of the final scenes from The Usual Suspects but I made no connection. I assumed at least one of them may have had a short-term bad guy role in BB but didn't research it.


----------



## TeddS (Sep 21, 2000)

The Kettlemans lived up to their name finally - reversing the "pot calling the kettle black" saying, accusing Jimmy of "stealing". Up to then, they were just a nice shiny kettle with pots all around them calling them black.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

I was really happy to see that they didn't ignore the notebook. They still got away with it way too easily, but at least it was addressed. 

And personally I loved the Mrs. Kettleman character. Manipulative and delusional and not terrible to look at.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

pjenkins said:


> That's not expensive for office space


Maybe not in your world.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

pjenkins said:


> That's not expensive for office space


For a solo attorney it is - one who is still building his practice.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

Turtleboy said:


> For a solo attorney it is - one who is still building his practice.


Not one who just got $100,000


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

midas said:


> I was really happy to see that they didn't ignore the notebook. They still got away with it way too easily, but at least it was addressed.
> 
> And personally I loved the Mrs. Kettleman character. Manipulative and delusional and *not terrible to look at*.


I found myself inordinately attracted to her.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

pjenkins said:


> Not one who just got $100,000


That will be gone in a few months with other expenses. I'd think he'd made a modest intermediate step just get out of the nail shop.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

We know that Saul ends up with a small storefront office in a strip mall.

I was waiting for Jimmy to drop the Kettleman files off with Chuck and Chuck finds a huge get out of jail scheme.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Aren't the Kettleman's the #1 suspects in the theft of over $1 million dollars?

Their house was never searched?

I was expecting some crazy hiding place in some bricked up false wall in the attic, not just behind some toilet paper in the bathroom cabinet.

-smak-


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Beryl said:


> That will be gone in a few months with other expenses. I'd think he'd made a modest intermediate step just get out of the nail shop.


I think he's doing pretty well lawyer wise. The retainer money would be to buy all the furniture, etc...The rent probably would come from his fees.

-smak-


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

smak said:


> Aren't the Kettleman's the #1 suspects in the theft of over $1 million dollars?
> 
> Their house was never searched?
> 
> ...


Well, it was more elaborate than that. There was a false floor under that sink. The toilet paper was sitting on a cover that would hide the tab necessary to open the false floor.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

midas said:


> And personally I loved the Mrs. Kettleman character. Manipulative and delusional and not terrible to look at.


I am looking forward to the Mrs. Kettleman spinoff.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Mr Kettleman is already used to being told what to do and what to think, he'll probably be ok in prison.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

[Geek Moment]

One cool thing for me: I'm figuring out surround sound after all these years (SOAK post to follow). I was thrilled when Saul's squeeze ran to the kitchen in the new office and said "The appliances are stainless steel! I don't have stainless steel at home!"

I could hear her walk behind me and call from the back to the right of me.

I replayed that and tried various sound modes and she was always there.

Yay!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I switched over to surround sound in the early days of DVD, when some of them were badly mastered so that the center channel would completely drop out in stereo (and thus the main dialogue was often very hard to hear).

I think sound is often underrated and under-appreciated; people obsess over image and ignore sound, but good sound can add as much in its own way as good video.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I think sound is often underrated and under-appreciated; people obsess over image and ignore sound, but good sound can add as much in its own way as good video.


i'm in full agreement, and this applies to content producers as much as consumers. anytime it's done well (especially science fiction, action, & fantasy), it adds a tremendous amount to the overall experience.


----------



## bsnelson (Oct 30, 1999)

DreadPirateRob said:


> I found myself inordinately attracted to her.


Totally this, and I'm not sure why.

Brad


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Just to save people from having to look it up, Mrs Kettleman is played by Julie Ann Emery.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

Azlen said:


> Just to save people from having to look it up, Mrs Kettleman is played by Julie Ann Emery.


Oh, I've already looked it up.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

There are some niiiiiccceeee images out there of her. Now I understand more why I was inordinately attracted to her. There's a couple of really good reasons why.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

If we still had a viable hawt-over-40 thread she'd be all up in there.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Azlen said:


> Just to save people from having to look it up, Mrs Kettleman is played by Julie Ann Emery.


During my Goo-ogling, I noticed that she was in the first couple of episodes of Fargo also, playing the pregnant wife of the first sheriff.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

bsnelson said:


> Totally this, and I'm not sure why.
> 
> Brad


I guess my straightness is official. I see nothing attractive about Mrs. Kettleman.

j/k

She reminds me of the high school "mean girls".


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Azlen said:


> Just to save people from having to look it up, Mrs Kettleman is played by Julie Ann Emery.





tivoboyjr said:


> Oh, I've already looked it up.





DreadPirateRob said:


> There are some niiiiiccceeee images out there of her. Now I understand more why I was inordinately attracted to her. There's a couple of really good reasons why.


OK, NOW we know why Mr. Kettleman is so whipped.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Beryl said:


> I guess my straightness is official. I see nothing attractive about Mrs. Kettleman.
> 
> j/k
> 
> She reminds me of the high school "mean girls".


Her hair in this show is not so good, admittedly.


----------



## Numb And Number2 (Jan 13, 2009)

Whoa, big fellas! I called dibs in "Hero" post #11. Maybe check out Skyler.. she's gonna be available. Sorry, not Betsy.. 'cuz dibs.


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

I found the pacing of this episode off again. And the music. Still enjoyable, but last week's episode has been the only real standout for me.


----------



## Jim_TV (Mar 4, 2006)

I also thought that office space was way too big and expensive for Jimmy's practice for one person, even if he hired a clerk and assistant. 

On another topic- does anyone sense that Jimmy will at some point be shown to have had or maybe still have a crush on Kim Wexler? Like maybe they were involved in the past briefly or he wanted it to be so but had to settle for platonic friendship with her? Just seems like they are pretty close friends for him to not want to jump her bones with her being so attractive.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Jolt said:


> Anyone notice anything about the mugshots on the wall? I figured there was something there but couldnt figure it out.





MikeAndrews said:


> One guy who was wanted was in the men's room with Jimmy!


Yeah ... Robert Sanchez was the beardo in the third mugshot which was directly above Jimmy's head, who Jimmy would later (literally) bump into in the "head" <--(old time slang for washroom).


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I like the fact that BCS has a smaller cast and a narrower focus than BB. I'm not ready to say it's a better show than BB but Bob Odenkirk and Jonathan Banks have conducting acting clinics so far.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

This week was another really good episode. I'm liking the pacing so far.


----------



## Martha (Oct 6, 2002)

One thing I didn't quite get was why is it so important for HHM to keep the Kettleman's as clients?


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Martha said:


> One thing I didn't quite get was why is it so important for HHM to keep the Kettleman's as clients?


I think its more of a culture thing there. "We are the best. We don't lose clients. If you lose a client, you are in the dog house." They seem to be a real pressure cooker law firm.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

And not just lose a client, but a newsworthy client, and lose him to Jimmy! Now, THAT must be humiliating!


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Mrs. Kettleman kind of reminds me of Hank's wife, Marie.


----------



## VegasVic (Nov 22, 2002)

Jimmy to Mrs, Kettleman when talking about the possibility of her going to jail too: "You'll be running your own gang".


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

The Slate podcast pointed out that the Florsheim box where Jimmy kept the cash is the same box from the future segment of the Pilot where he kept his Saul Goodman tapes and mementos.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

So we can see that Jimmy had around half of the $30K left - a $10K bundle and a partial bundle of $100s. Where'd he come up with the remaining $15K?


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> This episode was only "meh" for me. I didn't dislike it, but it really didn't do much. Maybe I'll give it another watch.


I think you mean "give this episode another watch", not "give the series another try".

I'm the same. I was playing a silly iPad game (Hearthstone) and not really paying attention. I missed all kinds of stuff.

Why did Mike put money in the toy truck?


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Cearbhaill said:


>





pjenkins said:


> That's not expensive for office space


Yeah, that's not much at all.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

uncdrew said:


> I think you mean "give this episode another watch", not "give the series another try".
> 
> I'm the same. I was playing a silly iPad game (Hearthstone) and not really paying attention. I missed all kinds of stuff.
> 
> Why did Mike put money in the toy truck?


Yes.

This episode - meh.

The series is still :up:


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

MikeAndrews said:


> We know that Saul ends up with a small storefront office in a strip mall.
> 
> I was waiting for Jimmy to drop the Kettleman files off with Chuck and Chuck finds a huge get out of jail scheme.


Interesting...

Jimmy could easily get Chuck to do tons of work for him but slowly leaving things there. Wonder if they'll go that route...

But Chuck is coming back someday, that's pretty certain.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

bsnelson said:


> Totally this, and I'm not sure why.
> 
> Brad


For me it was the boobs and hair. And the crazy.

She's almost perfect.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

uncdrew said:


> Why did Mike put money in the toy truck?


So the parents would see it, accuse the kids of playing with it, and put it away with the rest of the money. He had sprayed it with UV marker dye so he could follow the fingerprints to the rest of the money.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Jim_TV said:


> On another topic- does anyone sense that Jimmy will at some point be shown to have had or maybe still have a crush on Kim Wexler? Like maybe they were involved in the past briefly or he wanted it to be so but had to settle for platonic friendship with her? Just seems like they are pretty close friends for him to not want to jump her bones with her being so attractive.


I don't get their relationship at all.

As my wife often says when I ask questions: "Just keep watching".


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

uncdrew said:


> Why did Mike put money in the toy truck?


So the loonies would think the kids did it. If the money was just randomly dropped it may have caused suspicion.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> So the parents would see it, accuse the kids of playing with it, and put it away with the rest of the money. He had sprayed it with UV marker dye so he could follow the fingerprints to the rest of the money.


Thank you!

Makes perfect sense and pretty obvious (if you're actually paying attention).

So how did Mike know the money was in the bathroom? I missed that part too.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

I enjoyed this one, as all of them so far (another episode ending in 'o', as have all but one).

There is no reason to believe the money was in the house when it was searched since they took it with them camping it could have been anywhere.

I had no idea what was going on when Mike was spraying the money, I thought Jimmy was just giving it back. 

I realize it's going somewhere but I find the Chuck bits the least interesting and very disconnected from the rest of the show. Since they don't know right now how many seasons the show has it's interesting how they decide to handle the events that cause Jimmy to go to the darkside which, I would guess, involve Chuck.

The office was overkill but his plan was for a practice with at least one partner, not just for himself and a small team.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

uncdrew said:


> Thank you!
> 
> Makes perfect sense and pretty obvious (if you're actually paying attention).
> 
> So how did Mike know the money was in the bathroom? I missed that part too.


He followed the fingerprints.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> So we can see that Jimmy had around half of the $30K left - a $10K bundle and a partial bundle of $100s. Where'd he come up with the remaining $15K?


Little Old Lady land.



Martha said:


> One thing I didn't quite get was why is it so important for HHM to keep the Kettleman's as clients?


Yeah, it's not like the Kettlemans would have the cash to pay the lawyers after giving the booty back, but maybe his job paid well on its own.

BTW, exactly how do you go about turning embezzle checks into millions in cash? The banks has to report any cash transactions of over $10,000 (even $2000) these post 9/11 days.

The Kettlemans also had to be confident that Nacho wouldn't be coming back to do what he planned in the first place.



midas said:


> So the loonies would think the kids did it. If the money was just randomly dropped it may have caused suspicion.


I was trying to remember how Mike got Mr. K's attention to the toy truck? I was looking for him to drive it into the house.

Mike stays awake. He must be a fan of Red Bull.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> He followed the fingerprints.


Thanks button. :up:


----------



## VegasVic (Nov 22, 2002)

Yeah it looked like Mike just waited outside hoping the guy would come out at some point. Good thing the garbage got full I guess.

We all know what Jimmy/Saul turns out to be but it's fun seeing it happen.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

I read a review that mentioned how hard it is to understand how Jimmy goes from this person to the one suggesting troublesome people be sent to "Belize".

In many ways I am not sure that's a transition that will be pleasant to see.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

JohnB1000 said:


> In many ways I am not sure that's a transition that will be pleasant to see.


Just like a transition from mild-mannered chemistry teacher to scummy drug lord?


----------



## CraigK (Jun 9, 2006)

Music to case a house by...


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

DancnDude said:


> Just like a transition from mild-mannered chemistry teacher to scummy drug lord?


The article I read pointed out that (a) we didn't know where that was going when it started (b) we almost never saw a good side of Walter White


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> Mrs. Kettleman kind of reminds me of Hank's wife, Marie.


I think she's a lot hotter than Marie. For some reason she reminds me of Tatiana Maslany's soccer mom personality in Orphan Black.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

MikeAndrews said:


> BTW, exactly how do you go about turning embezzle checks into millions in cash? The banks has to report any cash transactions of over $10,000 (even $2000) these post 9/11 days.


Well ... I went to high school with a guy who managed to steal $3.75m in a business scheme/scam whereby he had ripped off 49,000 clients each of $75 tax refund checks. The business was to refund foreigners the taxes on their purchases while on vacation. He sent in the tax forms on their behalf, the govt. would issue the check to his office and he would forward the funds to each client, minus his fees. He probably initially promised to take a percentage for his services, but then got greedy while probably expecting that each person probably forgot about or wouldn't pursue a measly $50 or $60. The news story about his arrest and conviction mentioned that he started out the business honorably, but eventually stopped paying his clients anything and kept the entire refund check. But somebody eventually dropped a dime on him and an investigation was started which led to his arrest and eventual conviction. After 3 years of delays in the court process he is now starting to serve a 5 year term in prison.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Erf.

He was right though. His clients wouldn't notice the $50.

But driving that new Ferrari and bragging at the country club. Well, that'll get ya every time.


----------



## KyleLC (Feb 6, 2002)

CraigK said:


> Music to case a house by...


Thanks for posting that. I don't know why I didn't think use Shazam to look up the song when I was watching the show.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

getreal said:


> Well ... I went to high school with a guy who managed to steal $3.75m in a business scheme/scam ... After 3 years of delays in the court process he is now starting to serve a 5 year term in prison.


Sure, and there were many who pulled in $millions with mortgage scams, BUT how many had a black bag full of all of the ill-gotten gains IN CASH?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

JohnB1000 said:


> The article I read pointed out that (a) we didn't know where that was going when it started (b) we almost never saw a good side of Walter White


I'm not sure I'd agree with that. There were a lot of scenes of "good" Walter White.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

MikeAndrews said:


> BTW, exactly how do you go about turning embezzle checks into millions in cash? The banks has to report any cash transactions of over $10,000 (even $2000) these post 9/11 days.


There's the Superman III / Office Space way.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

gweempose said:


> I think she's a lot hotter than Marie. For some reason she reminds me of Tatiana Maslany's soccer mom personality in Orphan Black.


Her face reminded me a little of Christina Hendricks.

It bothers me when my wife or kids are distractedly watching something with me. It only means I'll have to explain something later. 

Good episode and really liking the series so far.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Ereth said:


> I'm not sure I'd agree with that. There were a lot of scenes of "good" Walter White.


This really is not that important, and I suspect you actually understand the point I am making but Walter did some good things, at this point Jimmy is a truly good person who cannot handle the minor bad things he does. To transition from that to a person who will flippantly recommend death for people he knows is quite a change, especially when you know it's coming.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Pure speculation on my part, but I suspect Bad Things might be in store for Chuck and/or Kim. Things that might play a part in hardening Saul's heart.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

MikeAndrews said:


> One guy who was wanted was in the men's room with Jimmy!


This was one of the little details that I loved catching in this episode.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> There's the Superman III / Office Space way.


Even Peter drew the money out as cashier's checks or money orders, which would have put him in handcuffs today, or at least have the feds be notified. Worse if he withdrew cash.

A funny (but real) would be for the Kettleman's van to be stopped by a state trooper who "arrests" and confiscates all of the cash.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

pjenkins said:


> Office wasn't that nice - looked to be about 3000 square feet - figure a per sq ft cost of say 25/ft (which is likely high in that area) and it's only about $7000/month + triple nets. so figure $7500/month, $8k tops.


$25/sq. ft. for Class A office space is pretty cheap. Plus, how much would the tenant improvements and furniture cost? That would probably eat up the full $30k right there.



DreadPirateRob said:


> During my Goo-ogling, I noticed that she was in the first couple of episodes of Fargo also, playing the pregnant wife of the first sheriff.


I remember looking her up after thinking she was hot in Fargo.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

pjenkins said:


> Not one who just got $100,000


Where did you get that figure? He only got $30K from the Kettlemans.



Jim_TV said:


> On another topic- does anyone sense that Jimmy will at some point be shown to have had or maybe still have a crush on Kim Wexler? Like maybe they were involved in the past briefly or he wanted it to be so but had to settle for platonic friendship with her? Just seems like they are pretty close friends for him to not want to jump her bones with her being so attractive.


I got the sense from an earlier episode that they were already involved. He called her late one night and she said "I'm not talking dirty to you tonight" or something like that, which I inferred to mean that she had done it in the past, and that they occasionally booty call each other.



getreal said:


> Yeah ... Robert Sanchez was the beardo in the third mugshot which was directly above Jimmy's head, who Jimmy would later (literally) bump into in the "head" <--(old time slang for washroom).


According to the podcast, he was played by a member of the crew, and he also played one of the guys that helped Walt and Jesse build the magnet.

"Yeah, *****. Magnets!"


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

DevdogAZ said:


> Where did you get that figure? He only got $30K from the Kettlemans.


Oh, sorry, for some reason I thought it was $100k. Still, for a startup law firm which hopes to quickly get clients, $7-8k/month isn't that bad, imo.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

pjenkins said:


> Oh, sorry, for some reason I thought it was $100k. Still, for a startup law firm which hopes to quickly get clients, $7-8k/month isn't that bad, imo.


I recently started a solo elder law practice, building it from the ground up. Paying $7-8k/month for rent is simply not practical for that type of practice unless you are bringing significant capital to the table to start with. Even then, it is that bad, imo.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

danterner said:


> i recently started a solo elder law practice, building it from the ground up. Paying $7-8k/month for rent is simply not practical for that type of practice unless you are bringing significant capital to the table to start with. Even then, it is that bad, imo.


+1


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

danterner said:


> I recently started a solo elder law practice, building it from the ground up. Paying $7-8k/month for rent is simply not practical for that type of practice unless you are bringing significant capital to the table to start with. Even then, it is that bad, imo.


+2

My monthly rent for my office is $400.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

CraigK said:


> Music to case a house by...


I was groovin' on that music in the ep.


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

Plus that 3000 foot office appeared to have a 1000 foot center area/hall.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

danterner said:


> I recently started a solo elder law practice, building it from the ground up. Paying $7-8k/month for rent is simply not practical for that type of practice unless you are bringing significant capital to the table to start with. Even then, it is that bad, imo.


Glad to hear that Bett and I rightfully  It just didn't make sense at this stage of his practice.


----------



## Jim_TV (Mar 4, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> I got the sense from an earlier episode that they were already involved. He called her late one night and she said "I'm not talking dirty to you tonight" or something like that, which I inferred to mean that she had done it in the past, and that they occasionally booty call each other.


I took Jimmy saying that more as just joking around with a friend, not serious. I have no idea if they are ever going to show Jimmy as being involved with Kim or wanting to, but that's no evidence either way imho.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

JohnB1000 said:


> This really is not that important, and I suspect you actually understand the point I am making but Walter did some good things, at this point Jimmy is a truly good person who cannot handle the minor bad things he does. To transition from that to a person who will flippantly recommend death for people he knows is quite a change, especially when you know it's coming.


I don't agree with that. At the start, Jimmy is a con artist and hustler. He got arrested for performing a Chicago Sunroof (don't look it up!). So he's a "bad" person trying very hard to go against his nature and be good.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

DreadPirateRob said:


> I found myself inordinately attracted to her.





tivoboyjr said:


> I am looking forward to the Mrs. Kettleman spinoff.


I think she's hot...


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Anubys said:


> Chicago Sunroof (don't look it up!)


All the definitions I've seen were posted after that episode aired, so I doubt it really means anything.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Wow, they've gone out of their way to show that he is not a bad person. Slipp'n Jimmy to casual instigator of murder in one step. Each to their own.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

gweempose said:


> I think she's a lot hotter than Marie. For some reason she reminds me of Tatiana Maslany's soccer mom personality in Orphan Black.


Good catch! Now that you mention it, they do share similarities.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

MikeAndrews said:


> Sure, and there were many who pulled in $millions with mortgage scams, BUT how many had a black bag full of all of the ill-gotten gains IN CASH?


Kim mentioned that Mr. Kettleman was so stupid that he wrote the checks out to himself. As in Elmore Leonard novels, crooks aren't always the brightest bulbs in the house.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

danterner said:


> I recently started a solo elder law practice, building it from the ground up. Paying $7-8k/month for rent is simply not practical for that type of practice unless you are bringing significant capital to the table to start with. Even then, it is that bad, imo.


Yeah, but were you getting clients by leading the games at the Bingo Hall?


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

I'm not a guy, but the lady I find to be hot is the lawyer, Jimmy's friend, who works for the firm and Jimmy's trying to get to partner with him. For some reason I have no idea what her name is, though.

For me, Mrs Kettleman is - meh. Maybe cuz she's a crazy *****. Beings I'm not a guy, that particular characteristic doesn't appeal to me.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Beryl said:


> Glad to hear that Bett and I rightfully  It just didn't make sense at this stage of his practice.


Well it does in context of this show, to me at least.

He thinks big.
He wants big.
He's been cooped up in a closet of a nail salon so of course the pendulum would swing way too far the other direction.
He longs for the things HMM has.
He's very confident and believes the office will create more revenues which will then let him afford the office.

Lastly, he may deep down have always known he wouldn't get this space. He was dreaming, he was exploring, he was enjoying and acting on his recent success.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

sharkster said:


> I'm not a guy, but the lady I find to be hot is the lawyer, Jimmy's friend, who works for the firm and Jimmy's trying to get to partner with him. For some reason I have no idea what her name is, though.


The character is named Kim Wexler and she is played by Rhea Seehorn.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

danterner said:


> I recently started a solo elder law practice, building it from the ground up. Paying $7-8k/month for rent is simply not practical for that type of practice unless you are bringing significant capital to the table to start with. Even then, it is that bad, imo.


Probably too much of this for the thread  That said, I highly doubt Saul... err Jimmy is content with being a "solo elder law practice". He was already courting the other attorney and you could tell he wanted to build a HHM type firm that brought in high $ clients. That office would have been a good start to that type of business.

By all means if you aspire to be a solo elder law practice lawyer with no dreams of growing a large high dollar law firm, pay the $400 or whatever the cheapest office you can get because you'll need to save on costs and make your living.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> The character is named Kim Wexler and she is played by Rhea Seehorn.


Thanks, Devdog! My memory really sucks anymore. I know I've seen her in other things. Will have to look her up. I like her as an actor, too.


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

sharkster said:


> Thanks, Devdog! My memory really sucks anymore. I know I've seen her in other things. Will have to look her up. I like her as an actor, too.


I think she was a friend on the show "Whitney", so I'm guessing her background is comedy.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

pjenkins said:


> Probably too much of this for the thread  That said, I highly doubt Saul... err Jimmy is content with being a "solo elder law practice". He was already courting the other attorney and you could tell he wanted to build a HHM type firm that brought in high $ clients. That office would have been a good start to that type of business.
> 
> By all means if you aspire to be a solo elder law practice lawyer with no dreams of growing a large high dollar law firm, pay the $400 or whatever the cheapest office you can get because you'll need to save on costs and make your living.


I'm not sure why you are assuming that being a solo practitioner and having a lucrative practice are mutually exclusive (I assure you they are not), or that having a solo practice means not having high $ clients (the two don't go hand in hand, necessarily). Solo does not equate to having a cheap office and scraping by, at least not for all solos. There are an increasing number of attorneys, across all practice areas, who are solo by choice and who are extremely successful financially.

I know many many solos and small firm attorneys, but I don't know any reasonable attorney who is paying anywhere close to $7-8k month for rent, thinking "a nice office will attract nice clients." That's simply not a sustainable way to start this type of practice, no matter whether he is aspiring to grow into an HHM type of firm or not. And there really aren't HHM-sized elder law firms; this area of law doesn't lend itself to the large firm model. Before I started my own practice, I was a partner in a three-partner firm. We had three associates and four or five assistants. We were the largest elder law firm in Florida, the state with the largest elder law presence in the country.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

mooseAndSquirrel said:


> I think she was a friend on the show "Whitney", so I'm guessing her background is comedy.


Yeah, I knew I'd seen her somewhere. She was the character that had a healthy appreciation for alcohol, wasn't she? I think she's good looking, too.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

danterner said:


> I'm not sure why you are assuming that being a solo practitioner and having a lucrative practice are mutually exclusive (I assure you they are not), or that having a solo practice means not having high $ clients (the two don't go hand in hand, necessarily). Solo does not equate to having a cheap office and scraping by, at least not for all solos. There are an increasing number of attorneys, across all practice areas, who are solo by choice and who are extremely successful financially.


I have no doubt you can be a successful one person attorney shop. Sorry if it came out differently. I don't think that is what Jimmy wanted to build.



danterner said:


> I know many many solos and small firm attorneys, but I don't know any reasonable attorney who is paying anywhere close to $7-8k month for rent, thinking "a nice office will attract nice clients." That's simply not a sustainable way to start this type of practice, no matter whether he is aspiring to grow into an HHM type of firm or not. And there really aren't HHM-sized elder law firms; this area of law doesn't lend itself to the large firm model. Before I started my own practice, I was a partner in a three-partner firm. We had three associates and four or five assistants. We were the largest elder law firm in Florida, the state with the largest elder law presence in the country.


I also do not think Jimmy wanted to limit the practice to "elder law". If you were in a 3 partner firm with three associates and five assistance, you were likely paying 7-8k/month if you had class A office space of the size I mentioned, at least in Dallas or other bigger cities (not sure what the rates are in NM)


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

mooseAndSquirrel said:


> I think she was a friend on the show "Whitney", so I'm guessing her background is comedy.


Yeah, I looked her up and saw that (I watched that show) and that she was also on Franklin & Bash (another show I liked-RIP F&B).


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

VegasVic said:


> We all know what Jimmy/Saul turns out to be but it's fun seeing it happen.


Not blaming you VegasVic but we don't all know but I'm sure we will if we keep watching this show and reading these threads.

I just finished S1 of BB. There isn't anything to be spoiled there and want to enjoy it spoiler free but while also enjoy watching this show. Not gonna happen unless something changes like spoiler tags for BB references announced in the the thread titles.


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

teknikel said:


> Not blaming you VegasVic but we don't all know but I'm sure we will if we keep watching this show and reading these threads.
> 
> I just finished S1 of BB. There isn't anything to be spoiled there and want to enjoy it spoiler free but while also enjoy watching this show. Not gonna happen unless something changes like spoiler tags for BB references announced in the the thread titles.


I'm sorry ... but if you want to be unspoiled for Breaking Bad seasons to come (for you), you will have to avoid Better Call Saul threads. I don't think we can have a spoiler rule requiring tags for shows that aired 5 years ago.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

teknikel said:


> Not blaming you VegasVic but we don't all know but I'm sure we will if we keep watching this show and reading these threads.
> 
> I just finished S1 of BB. There isn't anything to be spoiled there and want to enjoy it spoiler free but while also enjoy watching this show. Not gonna happen unless something changes like spoiler tags for BB references announced in the the thread titles.


Suggestion. Record Better Call Saul. Finish Breaking Bad, and then come back to BCS. You'll enjoy BCS better after finishing BB.

Did you like the opening scene of the pilot of Better Call Saul, where is he managing a Cinnabon?? If you haven't seen all of Breaking Bad, you couldn't have truly appreciated it.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

There have already been characters in Saul that are key in BB so not having watched it changes the context completely.

It is an interesting thought though, I never considered people watching Saul who have not seen BB. I wonder how much it changes the show. These then just become characters. I kind of wonder how the opinion of Mike changes when you don't know his character from BB (and that he will eventually be abducted by aliens).


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

JohnB1000 said:


> I kind of wonder how the opinion of Mike changes when you don't know his character from BB (and that he will eventually be abducted by aliens).


Don't mention the probing!


----------



## ireland967 (Feb 27, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> Suggestion. Record Better Call Saul. Finish Breaking Bad, and then come back to BCS. You'll enjoy BCS better after finishing BB.
> 
> Did you like the opening scene of the pilot of Better Call Saul, where is he managing a Cinnabon?? If you haven't seen all of Breaking Bad, you couldn't have truly appreciated it.


I agree with this wholeheartedly. I would have thought Mike's story in the Five-O episode would have been good not having seen BB, but it rose to truly excellent having gone in knowing his character. I have to think there will be more and more references as the timeline in BCS gets closer to BB.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Maybe BCS needs to add one more slide after the "This program is rated..." 
"This program contains spoilers for the Breaking Bad series. Binge watching is advised."


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

Marco said:


> I'm sorry ... but if you want to be unspoiled for Breaking Bad seasons to come (for you), you will have to avoid Better Call Saul threads. I don't think we can have a spoiler rule requiring tags for shows that aired 5 years ago.


I've always thought that spoiler tags were required, no matter how old the show is, and I think that's the way it should be, generally. But this is a special case, since we're watching a prequel to Breaking Bad. I don't think we should have to avoid posting BB spoilers in BCS threads. BCS itself spoils some things about BB.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

markb said:


> I've always thought that spoiler tags were required, no matter how old the show is, and I think that's the way it should be, generally. .


There has to be a statute of limitation on spoilers.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Turtleboy said:


> There has to be a statute of limitation on spoilers.


Can we talk about what Rosebud means yet?
Or who the man behind the curtain is?
Who Luke Skywalkers father is?
Or even the secret behind The Sixth Sense?

For some people, even if the source is old, they simply haven't seen it. I agree with you, but if you are one of the people who haven't seen it, it can be very frustrating to have a big moment like that ruined.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Ereth said:


> Can we talk about what Rosebud means yet?
> Or who the man behind the curtain is?
> Who Luke Skywalkers father is?
> Or even the secret behind The Sixth Sense?


My band just wrote a new song called Spoiler Alert. Every one of these, and more, are spoiled in it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

We could just have everyone wear this shirt all the time:










Or this one:


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> We could just have everyone wear this shirt all the time:


What are the Village ones?


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> There has to be a statute of limitation on spoilers.


I don't see why.


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

markb said:


> I don't see why.


Because having to spoilerize every plot point inhibits conversation. In the interest of allowing the majority to freely discuss a show, there has to be a certain amount of time beyond which, if you delay watching a popular movie or program, you accept the risk of becoming spoiled if you wander into discussion of that content.


----------



## Numb And Number2 (Jan 13, 2009)

Ereth said:


> Can we talk about what Rosebud means yet?
> Or who the man behind the curtain is?
> Who Luke Skywalkers father is?
> Or even the secret behind The Sixth Sense?


Was The Beav' ever rescued from the cup of Zesto Soup?


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Ereth said:


> Can we talk about what Rosebud means yet?
> Or who the man behind the curtain is?
> Who Luke Skywalkers father is?
> Or even the secret behind The Sixth Sense?
> ...


All of those, absolutely. Not just because of _time_, but because they are so ingrained in our culture.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

Marco said:


> Because having to spoilerize every plot point inhibits conversation. In the interest of allowing the majority to freely discuss a show, there has to be a certain amount of time beyond which, if you delay watching a popular movie or program, you accept the risk of becoming spoiled if you wander into discussion of that content.


Why would we be having a conversation about a different show (except perhaps BB), in this thread?

If you want to have a conversation about, say, Lost, go to a Lost thread, or start a new thread, and spoil Lost to your heart's content.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> All of those, absolutely. Not just because of _time_, but because they are so ingrained in our culture.


Exactly. I've never seen Citizen Kane, but I've known what Rosebud was for most of my adult life. I've also never seen Planet of the Apes, but I know what planet it takes place on. Lots of stuff like that is just ubiquitous and you're fighting a losing battle if you try to remain unspoiled rather than just embracing it.

Basically, for anyone that hasn't watched Breaking Bad, Jimmy eventually turns into a lawyer without morals or ethics and he is as much a part of the criminal schemes as his clients that he's trying to protect. Now that you know this crucial piece of information, which the creators of BCS expect viewers to know, now you can watch with an eye to see how that transformation is going to happen, since right now we're seeing a Jimmy that is trying very hard to do the right thing.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

markb said:


> Why would we be having a conversation about a different show (except perhaps BB), in this thread?
> 
> If you want to have a conversation about, say, Lost, go to a Lost thread, or start a new thread, and spoil Lost to your heart's content.


We're talking about Breaking Bad. We're not talking about spoiling Lost.



Spoiler



Walt is Walt Jr's father

But not in Lost.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

But, if we're comparing a scene in this show to something from Star Wars, we shouldn't have to hide Darth Vader spoilers.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

markb said:


> I don't see why.


Because, as *Turtleboy* said, after a certain time these twists have because part of our pop culture... something that everyone knows and so gets the joke.
If you have elected to live under a rock you can't come out years or even decades later and complain that the culture has moved on. 
That's what cultures _do._
If you choose to avoid it, then _avoid_ it 100%.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> We're talking about Breaking Bad. We're not talking about spoiling Lost.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And I started by saying that BB spoilers should be OK in BCS threads. But not because of age.


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

So, how much time? The show ended 18 months ago not 5 years ago.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

teknikel said:


> So, how much time? The show ended 18 months ago not 5 years ago.


Well, I'll follow whatever rules everyone agrees on here, but my own personal opinion is that expecting people to honor spoilerphobes for more than a year after a show or movie is ridiculous. In today's media climate, if you want to stay unspoiled for more than a week or so after something is out in the world, then IMHO it becomes your own responsibility, not that of other people.

I watch A LOT of content llloooooonnnngg after everyone else, but I don't expect other people to not discuss it in my presence. My choice to watch late is not other people's problem.

But that's just one man's opinion, of course.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Can you imagine a Star Wars thread talking about every film made after ESB? How could you talk about episodes 1, 2, and 3? It would be just all spoiler tags.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

markb said:


> I don't see why.


Nor I....not that anybody cares.



Marco said:


> Because having to spoilerize every plot point inhibits conversation. In the interest of allowing the majority to freely discuss a show, there has to be ...


That's just ridiculous. Not EVERY plot point (not even most) would have to be spoilerized...


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Why? Because this place is different, always has been.


----------



## Numb And Number2 (Jan 13, 2009)

Better Call Saul is a prequel to and in the same universe as Breaking Bad. They are different series, for sure, but in a practical sense BCS plays as a new season of BB. So BCS should be spoiler ruled as such with discussion of 'earlier seasons' being allowed. IMO, o' course.

I hate spoilers but in a situation like this I'd not expect others to limit their discussion. I'd take the responsibility to avoid spoilers.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

After about a year, I am not going to even consider censoring something I say that I know is about/from a television show. And that's a year from the episode, not a year from the last episode of the series.

...unless it's in a thread specific to an episode or season prior to the one where the events I'd post about take place.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

dswallow said:


> After about a year, I am not going to even consider censoring something I say that I know is about/from a television show. And that's a year from the episode, not a year from the last episode of the series.
> 
> ...unless it's in a thread specific to an episode or season prior to the one where the events I'd post about take place.


Sounds about right

IMHO


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

As I have always said it is the journey not the destination. I don't think any series would be any worse for me had I known what happened at the end.


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

Dawghows said:


> Well, I'll follow whatever rules everyone agrees on here, but my own personal opinion is that expecting people to honor spoilerphobes for more than a year after a show or movie is ridiculous.


I agree, I'm good with a 365 day rule.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Marco said:


> I agree, I'm good with a 365 day rule.


Great! Then you'll be okay with me spoiling the bible:
It was all made up by a bunch of men centuries after the stories were originally told and embellished throughout the ages. And we all die in the end! 

Now, to get back on topic, here is an interesting interview with Bob Odenkirk, where he talks about a load of hooey:


----------



## TheSlyBear (Dec 26, 2002)

MikeAndrews said:


> I was waiting for Madam Kettleman to tell whipped Mr. Kettleman that he could do the 30 years.


Yeah, the look on her face in the conference room was so much "Oh yes, I could throw this guy under the bus for 1.6 mil!"

And I know I'm not a random sample because I'm gay, but with regards to the Mrs., there isn't enough hotness in the world that can overcome that amount of crazy!


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

TheSlyBear said:


> Yeah, the look on her face in the conference room was so much "Oh yes, I could throw this guy under the bus for 1.6 mil!"
> 
> And I know I'm not a random sample because I'm gay, but with regards to the Mrs., there isn't enough hotness in the world that can overcome that amount of crazy!


It is a known fact that this amount of crazy translates into an equal amount of crazy sex!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Anubys said:


> It is a known fact that this amount of crazy translates into an equal amount of crazy sex!


John Bobbitt would agree with you...


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> John Bobbitt would agree with you...


What does he know? He's not half a man.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Howie said:


> What does he know? He's not half a man.


He's certainly not half the man he used to be...


----------



## jon777 (May 30, 2002)

TheSlyBear said:


> Yeah, the look on her face in the conference room was so much "Oh yes, I could throw this guy under the bus for 1.6 mil!"
> 
> And I know I'm not a random sample because I'm gay, but with regards to the Mrs., there isn't enough hotness in the world that can overcome that amount of crazy!





Anubys said:


> It is a known fact that this amount of crazy translates into an equal amount of crazy sex!


Hot/Crazy Matrix


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

The character is crazy, the actress is attractive. We don't know if the actress is crazy.

We can only hope


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

jon777 said:


> Hot/Crazy Matrix


Also known as the Vicky Mendoza Diagonal, which was previously explained far more succinctly and entertainingly by one Barney Stinson:


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I like Barney's orientation of the axes better. It's the required hotness (dependent, y-axis) for a given level of crazy (independent, x-axis).


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

What about a woman who's crazy-hot?


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

Beauty is fleeting, crazy is forever.


----------

