Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
So you couldn't think of any either.
He spilled that cup of coffee.So you couldn't think of any either.
Come on, Brah. The most intriguing thing he's done is try to transform himself from a street hustler to a respectable lawyer...all to please his brother.....and then get bamboozled by said brother. That's a great start.So you couldn't think of any either.
He's the title character of the show. Of course he's carrying it.So he's carrying the show in your estimation?Odenkirk is the lead and he's doing a great job on a great show. Give him his due already.
I have no problem with the show. I like it very much, but I am much more interested in the Mike scenes.If anybody's carrying the show (and that doesn't necessarily always have to be the case) it's Odenkirk without question. Mike's great but he's not getting half the screen time and who's just watching the show for Mike?
The show is carrying itself just fine.
he's on the screen for maybe 80+% of the series.So you couldn't think of any either.
the Juan Valdez bump and dumpHe spilled that cup of coffee.So you couldn't think of any either.
and you're still way off.I love Bob. But he's not "carrying the show" which was my original concern.
This show would still be watchable if Bob wasn't even in it.and you're still way off.I love Bob. But he's not "carrying the show" which was my original concern.
what would it be about? he's in almost every scene and it's a story about his life.This show would still be watchable if Bob wasn't even in it.and you're still way off.I love Bob. But he's not "carrying the show" which was my original concern.![]()
Call Lerner and Rowe, it's the way to go.In a wreck, need a check? Glen Lerner is the lawyer for you...
(This dude took the reigns from Slippin Jimmy in
Chicago..)
Well it wouldn't be called "Better Call Saul", obviously. Gilligan is clearly responsible for the magic. Take him, the same writers, directors and actors - minus Odenkirk - and you still have a hit show. Name it whatever you'd like.what would it be about? he's in almost every scene and it's a story about his life.This show would still be watchable if Bob wasn't even in it.and you're still way off.I love Bob. But he's not "carrying the show" which was my original concern.![]()
Let's call him Billy MusoliniTrevor is the new Landry. Let's hope that guy never comes back so we can all get past this.
Dang I thought Trevor was the fat dude that booked it out of there.So wait - you are saying the guy Mike took the gun away from is this guy ???
https://www.google.com/search?q=trevor+on+gta+5&newwindow=1&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=zfYeVc_WCYvtsAWi4YDIDw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=979
SFW
Mike and Chuck disagreeP.S. I'm fishing. I love Bob. But he's not "carrying the show" which was my original concern.
I do agree with you there, even at the risk of once again being accused of "slobbering on Gilligan's knob."Well it wouldn't be called "Better Call Saul", obviously. Gilligan is clearly responsible for the magic. Take him, the same writers, directors and actors - minus Odenkirk - and you still have a hit show. Name it whatever you'd like.what would it be about? he's in almost every scene and it's a story about his life.This show would still be watchable if Bob wasn't even in it.and you're still way off.I love Bob. But he's not "carrying the show" which was my original concern.![]()
What would you like us to post, Shuke?Sorry, meant to say "Will you all"
I get your point, but the fact is that's still accurate. There are several actors who could have pulled off Tony just fine.Take Chase, the same writers, directors, and actors minus Gandolfini, and you still have a hit show.
Sure, but in both cases, the actor is largely responsible for who the character is. Replace them, and the shows are different and likely not as good.I get your point, but the fact is that's still accurate. There are several actors who could have pulled off Tony just fine.Take Chase, the same writers, directors, and actors minus Gandolfini, and you still have a hit show.
But the best episode of the season, Odenkirk wasn't even in it. Or maybe he was for a second.... who remembers.Sure, but in both cases, the actor is largely responsible for who the character is. Replace them, and the shows are different and likely not as good.I get your point, but the fact is that's still accurate. There are several actors who could have pulled off Tony just fine.Take Chase, the same writers, directors, and actors minus Gandolfini, and you still have a hit show.
Well that's kooky talk.That's just, like, your opinion. Odenkirk was the best part of the Mike episode, looking like a young Paul Newman but dressed as Matlock
Well that's kooky talk.That's just, like, your opinion. Odenkirk was the best part of the Mike episode, looking like a young Paul Newman but dressed as Matlock
Help him find a man or woman (not sure if gay or not) and he may cut down.