• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Better Call Saul, the TV series

I would imagine someone watching Saul without having seen Bad would just assume that in the flash-forward Saul's life has been ruined as a result of the events of this series, not another one.
 
gblews said:
It may be fair to make that assumption but if you allow that assumption to influrnce the writing of your current show, then you've likely failed Screennwriting 101. Your show needs to be written so that it stands on it's own, regardless of the fact that it may be a prequel, sequel, or spinoff.

Vince Gilligan is too good a writer to allow Saul to fall into this trap. The show definitely stands on it's own, but it isn't BB (it's not supposed to be) and if you go into Saul thinking that it is going to feel like BB, you are likely going to feel disappointed.
Click to expand...

By that logic, Screenwriting 101 should stop you from having any serialization at all. Every episode should stand completely on its own without any knowledge of the series.

I think the edition of Screenwriting 101 you're reading came before the Netflix era, when it wasn't easy to watch the previous shows for free whenever you want. The rules are different now. You can make a spinoff of a show that aired a few years ago and treat it like it's a new season of that show with a focus on different characters. If people who know nothing about the original Twin Peaks don't understand the references in the upcoming new series, would you consider it a failure?

Some spinoff shows become boring because of instead of building and enriching what they have already they wipe the slate clean and just make the show disposable. Better Call Saul has not fallen into this trap. If it was written completely as a standalone, wiping the slate clean and not assuming basic viewer knowledge of the characters, it would have been much more bland and less powerful.

This isn't the 80s where you needed to have every episode and every show be completely self contained because viewers didn't have easy access to the show's history. You can have much more powerful impact by adding a little serialization, even between related series.
 
I just binge watched season 1 in two days and loved it. I found that it did feel very much like Breaking Bad. The writing, characters, cinematography and Albuquerque location gave it that. It came as a surprise that Saul was actually someone else named Jimmy. If you didn't catch the very beginning or pay attention, the show's title would confuse you. It's a shame that we know what's yet to come because he seems to have every opportunity to have a decent life.

I'm curious about what becomes of the other characters and why he didn't leave Aluquerque by the time Breaking Bad comes around.

Looking forward to season 2. It'll be several months or a year before I see it.

If the show seems too slow for you, try watching everything back to back.
 
JirinPanthosa said:
By that logic, Screenwriting 101 should stop you from having any serialization at all. Every episode should stand completely on its own without any knowledge of the series.
Click to expand...
Creating a show that is highly serialized doesn't stop a writer from writing episodes that stand up on their own. Understand, I'm not talking about "standalone" episodes which are episodes that have little or nothing to do with the season's main arc (if there is one). What I'm talking about is in the midst of a completely serialized series, each episode should be logical and understandable by a person who knows little to nothing about the overall arc story.

In addition to the aforementioned, the episode should push the arc story forward. It takes talented writers to accomplish this trick. Some are better at it than others.
I think the edition of Screenwriting 101 you're reading came before the Netflix era, when it wasn't easy to watch the previous shows for free whenever you want. The rules are different now.
Click to expand...
Oh, it definitely predates Netflix. The rules haven't changed. Just because you may have seen a series with episodes that have no real beginning, middle, or end, unable to stand on their own without the viewer having seen some other show, or the first episodes of the current show, doesn't mean that this is good writing or that these episodes are well crafted.

Bottom line, Saul and BB were both written so that each individual episode stood on it's own. In other words, you could watch any individual episode from either series and understand and be able to find the logic and be entertained whether or not you had seen the previous episodes or the "other" show. Granted, you won't know the 'whole" story, but that fact won't stop you from enjoying and understanding the individual episode.

No doubt there are serialized shows on Netffilx that have several episodes that are nearly unwatchable, or unintelligible, without having seen other material. But we all know that Netflix has some shows with less than stellar writing.
 
I would argue that Daredevil and Jessica Jones are so serialized the individual episodes don't have their own identities or resolutions.
 
I thought that Saul was pretty serialized, enough so that you probably have to watch everything from the beginning while being careful not to miss anything.
 
My problem tonight? Saul comes on at the same time as Lost Girl. I don't know which to watch and which to catch on demand.
 
All I'm saying is, if you can have a better impact by expecting the viewer to have previous knowledge, you should do it. In some cases artistry has to come before accessibility. The rule for every episode to stand on its own is an edict from networks to keep from alienating the audience. It's like the old 'Three unities'. In the fifteenth century there was a rule for playwrights that all plays must take place in the same place, over a small period of time, regarding a single thing. Shakespeare violated the three unities and got away with it because he had artistic vision that justified it. If you've got an artistic vision that justifies it, you can break the rules.

I see what you're saying, that having every episode stand on its own is a rule that if you're not actually a good writer and attempt to break you will end up writing something terrible. But great writers like Vince Gilligan can break it and get away with it.
 
Mr Light said:
Saul and Lost Girl both rerun later in the night.
Click to expand...
True, but I get up early for work and usually can't stay up late enough. Last night I could, though, so I caught the Saul rerun.

Good premiere, but I was kind of surprised he gave in so quickly. I guess he decided he couldn't go all the way back to who he was before.
 
I was hoping someone might clue me in on their thoughts on what Jimmy was thinking in the season 1 finale, and shown again with more context in the Season 2 premiere. Why did Jimmy suddenly decide to decline consideration by the new law firm, then why exactly did he seem to pick it back up again? Was Kim right that he initially declined because he thought Chuck was right and that he shouldn't be a lawyer? Then did he think of the death of his friend Marco and decide he didn't want to go back into that life, and didn't want to draw Kim into that life?

Also, never having seen Walking Dead and Talking Dead, I checked out Talking Saul to see what they discussed. I guess it was good for a look at the "behind the scenes" kind of stuff, but I felt it was disappointing in that it didn't really discuss any of the events or themes of the episode. Anyone else think this? And is this the same with Talking Dead? Anyone know a good podcast that does in depth discussions of Better Call Saul?
 
Yeah, I didn't quite follow Jimmys reasons for declining and then accepting his new law firm all of a sudden or was it? I did enjoy the IT/drug dealer story.
 
I don't think McLean Stevenson ever died--he just morphed with Bill Daily and the two of them became Bob Odenkirk. I can just see him wearing a hat with fishooks asking Radar what he just signed.

I wanted Talking Saul to be a weekly thing----------------------

It looks like Slippin' Jimmy is going to try to corrupt his brother Chuck.

Then a thought popped into my head. Wouldn't it be just like Vince to have Chuck meet his end in the electric chair?
 
As far as I'm concerned, Mike let that snotty, stupid little weasel off easy. I get that he was protecting himself in the process, but a well placed bullet would have solved the problem and brought me great satisfaction. Instead, he got the idiot's baseball cards back and got Jimmy to stand up for him. Much better than he deserved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top