So that speech has to foreshadow...something, no? Maybe a lot. Working theory: blueberries are meth, Spock is Walt, Chekov is Jesse, Kirk is Mike, Scotty is Saul, Uhura is Lydia. Or Chekov is Hank and Kirk is Gus. Either way, whoever is Chekov is going to think they've got Walt, and they'll fuck up, or someone will stop them. Or Chekov is Walt and someone else wins. Thoughts?
Theres a ton of analyses about the Star Trek thing all over the web and I think people are reading into it too much, and I think Vince Gilligan put it in there for that very reason. I could be wrong, but its probably just a red herring to fuck with fans. Theres 7 episodes left, I dont know how much more foreshadowing and symbolism they really need. LOST tried to go crazy with that stuff right until the end, and the show got so convoluted and wrapped up in its own mythos that the finale was quite lackluster.
I'm pretty sure that the star trek thing was just to show what a Debbie downer Jesse is being. He was the only person not loving the Badger and Skinny Pete variety hour.
Fair enough. I never watched Lost, but from what I gathered they completely overdid the foreshadowing/symbolism all the time always (correct me if I'm wrong). But part of Breaking Bad's brilliance is its subtlety. On the surface, that scene is just to show that Jesse's post-meth days are basically what Walt predicted at the end of the first half: boring, time-wasting, pointless, dumbass friends etc. There's a good chance I'm reading too much into it, but there's no chance that scene was to ONLY show Jesse's post-meth life. It took up too much time, and he wasn't even in the room for part of it. At the very least, there's the philosophical debate that whole thing was based on: the teleporter thing about if you would actually be you when you arrive, because the machine would technically have killed you and reanimated you somewhere else. Obviously it speaks to Walt becoming Heisenberg, change, decay, and all that. Maybe that's all it means (Jesse's life and change/decay), but to me it was too elaborate (blueberries/blue meth), and it doesn't take much effort to match up the characters ("Finally, it's down to just three..."). I also haven't known the show to throw in red herrings, but there's a good chance I just missed them anyways. Oh, and for all the worrying Skylar did re: her kids being in danger, I'm pretty sure she wrote either her or their death warrant when she told Lydia to fuck off.
I don't know about the rest of you but when Walt says hello to the neighbor and she drops the grocery bag with the oranges, the first thing I thought of was The Godfather. Also I saw a funny comment predicting the last episodes are of Walt and Skylar trying to run a successful car wash business.
Just to add to the Star Trek speculation, Walt Whitman was inspirational in Russia's 20th century revolution.
You're all reading too much into the Star Trek scene. Badger is a bit of a cult hero and it was just a little bit of spotlight for him. In Talking Bad, Gilligan said it had no bigger meaning and was just there to show that the show doesn't take itself too seriously.
Yeah I read somewhere that he had always had that Star Trek idea as kind of a joke for pitching a spec script to NBC and decided it would be a good fit for Badger in this show. Sometimes insufferable arteeest plant super deep meanings into every action on screen. Sometimes film makers just shoot a scene because they think it's funny and insufferable fans assign all shorts of stupid shit to it that isn't there*. *see Mad Men thread or the documentary Room 237.
Agreed. That documentary was fucking terrible. I watched it for 10 minutes and shut it off because it was so mind numblingly boring. I like the Shining and its hidden meaning as much as the next guy, but an allegory for faking the moon landing? Retarded.
Well like I said, it very well could just have been to show Jesse's current life, with a general connection to change and decay. But to use up 2+ minutes in one of the last episodes of the series just to give a periphery character a spotlight, in a crazily-detailed show that as far as I can tell has never thrown things in just because...I dunno. And obviously the one answer Gilligan was definitely NOT going to give is "Oh, yeah, that was total foreshadowing. You can figure out a lot if you read into correctly."
You keep assuming that they are going to stick to conventional wisdom of tv making, particularly advertisement based tv filming rules, and have every scene advance the plot to keep to some ABC storyline structure. Sticking something random like that in there makes it stand out simply because it isn't following normal broadcast tv conventions and, as they have before with those two characters, add to the flavor of the show with some offbeat comic relief. Which, as far as I can tell, from all their scenes in this show is basically their sole purpose. It is kind of reminding me of The Sopranos final scene and how this huge theory developed that it was shot as some allegory to the Last Supper. David Chase laughed at the idea and called the fans idiots basically and said all of the implications of what happened after where foreshadowed through out the series not in one insanely over thought out and executed scene.
He has given plenty of insights and hints into his foreshadowing before, why wouldn't he do it with this scene? Sometimes a rose is just a rose.
Not really following the conventional TV making part. Obviously that scene, taken on bare bones/surface meaning, was to show what Jesse's life is like post-meth cooking days (that is, exactly what Walter said it would be at the end of 5A). Seems like pretty standard story structure to me. Hasn't it always been after the season has ended, though? That was the first time they've had a 'Talking (blank)' show, correct? Anyways, like I've said a couple times, it very well could just be to show what Jesse's life is like, with a general connection to the broad theme of change/decay. It just seemed a bit too long of a scene for it to be ONLY that. The comic relief I recall over the series is usually intertwined to the plot ("Hello Carol" being a good, recent example), and I can't recall many long tangents that didn't have some kind of dual (or more) meaning.
Right Jesse's actions are straight forward the other half of the scene which everyone seems to be ascribing meaning to is the Star Trek part. We are of just two kind of opposing opinions of it. There are film makers that adhere to the old philosophy that every scene has to be advancing the plot*, this is bigger in commercial television because they are on strict time constraints. What I'm getting from your post is that you think the Star Trek bit could be some sort of serious foreshadowing, though it might not be the most straight forward narrative device. I think, like many other widely acclaimed TV shows like The Sopranos, it was simply executing a scene that wouldn't normally be kosher on a network TV because it simple doesn't mean much to the over all plot but adds a lot of texture to the show. The same stuff was said about Quentin Tarantino when he had a bunch of characters talking about random pop culture references in his movies. Plus I think, like I said before, Skinny Pete and Badger serve as a lot of comic relief for the show. *Watch Back to the Future with Robert Zemeckis, I remember him talking about this and it is pretty evident through out the movie.
Sorry, still not following, specifically: The way I'm seeing it, the scene does mean a lot (well, a bit, in this episode anyways) to the plot because it's showing us what Jesse's life is like -- that's the very least it's doing (plot moving). I agree you wouldn't see a tangent like that on a network show, but you could say that about the entire series, not just this scene in particular. I guess I'm not getting why you're bringing up other shows and TV storytelling formats. My suspicions/theory are based only on comparisons to the nature of Breaking Bad itself. From my admittedly shitty memory, I don't remember that long of a tangent, even a tangent of the comic relief variety, not having some level of subtext, if not full out foreshadowing. It just seems very Breaking Bad to have a seemingly meaningless, throwaway scene end up hinting at something major. Not the best example, but first one that comes to mind: Gus riding the elevator down from the cop shop, staring at the camera, tapping his finger almost exactly in time to the elevator bell dinging at each floor. Also really excited to see what kind of "major" role (according to Gilligan) Walt Jr. is going to play. Someone online pointed out that his actual life has only ever been hinted at. We never see Lewis, or any of his friends (I think maybe once when he was trying to buy booze in season 1?), or really know anything about him besides his family life. Based on Gilligan's comments, there could be a whole story there that, in some genius Breaking Bad way, will collide with the one we've been seeing. Oh and does anyone else find it a bit...shortsighted of Walt to not give Lydia his formula/method? Or are we to assume he has done that and the new cook(s) just suck?
Re: Re: Breaking Bad: Season 5 I am assuming he left her everything and the new cooks are just fucking it up.
Re: Re: Breaking Bad: Season 5 I believe that we are supposed to assume it is Todd doing the cooking. He trained him at he end of the first half if the season.