Hot take: Most of Breaking Bad was actually boring filler

[Kobold Stew]

I'm a fan of bottle episodes. I maintain that arguably the greatest single hour of television was an episode of Homicide that's largely Andre Braugher going in and out of an interrogation room, wearing down a suspect the detectives are sure is guilty of murder, but just won't crack and they don't have the evidence to convict without him.

Gives me chills every time I think about this episode.

 

[AnotherGuy]

There are dozens of Oscar winning movies that manage to tell that kind of story in two hours.

For what it is worth I did enjoy your opening post.
It is a pleasant left turn from the predictable whether I agree with you or disagree.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

There are dozens of Oscar winning movies that manage to tell that kind of story in two hours.

Sure, I get that you like novels, but c'mon ... there are tons of short stories that tell the story in a shorter format! Why bother with Dostoyevsky or Nabokov when you can just read Lady with Lapdog, amirite?

I get that you didn't appreciate everything in it ... but ... wow. Different formats play to different strengths. You absolutely could not have told this story in two hours. If you think you could have, maybe you got something very different from the show than other people did.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

maybe you got something very different from the show than other people did.

That was sort of the point of my original post.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That was sort of the point of my original post.

Yeah .... there's a difference in tone between the original post and the followup.

Here-

"I'm not a big fan of chocolate ice cream. Don't get why y'all keep ordering it."

"Look, I tried the chocolate ice cream, and it kinda sucks. There are tons of candy bars that do a better job giving you chocolate than ice cream ever will."

One is an expression of preference. The other is ... kind of shows that you are denigrating something, and says more about the person than about the subject. YMMV.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Gives me chills every time I think about this episode.

It also nicely sets up Brooklyn Nine-Nine, in that one of the big jokes, all the way to the end, is that we conflate Andre Braugher, the actor, with Frank Pembleton, his character from Homicide, and seeing him be funny never stops breaking our brains a little bit.

(Captain Holt, of course, got to be a very fully realized character with a lot of other things going on. But the fact that it's Andre Braugher doing them was always inherently funny.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yeah .... there's a difference in tone between the original post and the followup.

Here-

"I'm not a big fan of chocolate ice cream. Don't get why y'all keep ordering it."

"Look, I tried the chocolate ice cream, and it kinda sucks. There are tons of candy bars that do a better job giving you chocolate than ice cream ever will."

One is an expression of preference. The other is ... kind of shows that you are denigrating something, and says more about the person than about the subject. YMMV.

I posted a provocative subject heading to provoke debate. (I think of "hot take" as signalling "here is my contrary opinion that is likely at least partially wrong.")

I don't think I've ever suggested, anywhere in my (yikes) 19-year history on this site that people are bad people for liking something different than I like (for one thing, you people would eat up all the pralines and cream ice cream, and that would suck). No one is bad for liking Breaking Bad more than me, any more than I'm bad for thinking that Lost was great until the moment the producers caved in to the audience that wanted things explained, which it had never been set up to support.

But the notion that one can't tell a story of a man's fall from grace and letting his theoretical morals get ground away by perceived necessity until he's ultimately an evil person -- and likely was, all along -- cannot be told well in a movie is simply wrong and a silly assertion to make. There's ample evidence to the contrary, and one liking Breaking Bad doesn't mean that all those movies are somehow bad as a result.

 

[Bedrockgames]

On the movie versus show debate. The beauty of a great movie is the editing down to time constraints and preserving what is needed to tell the story. I think my favorite visual storytelling medium is the film, and in most cases, I have greater admiration for 130 minute movies simply because that is such a tight format to work inside (but plenty of 2 hour, 2.5, 3 hour movies I've liked too). With long form in a show, there is more room for exploring things that might have been on the chopping ground floor in a movie (a bit of world building that is conveyed efficiently in one line of dialogue in a film, might get deeper exploration). If I had to pick between the two I would choose the movie format. I am just more of a film buff than a show buff. But I don't think one is bad and the other good. They are just operating under different constraints

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But the notion that one can't tell a story of a man's fall from grace and letting his theoretical morals get ground away by perceived necessity until he's ultimately an evil person -- and likely was, all along -- cannot be told well in a movie is simply wrong and a silly assertion to make. There's ample evidence to the contrary, and one liking Breaking Bad doesn't mean that all those movies are somehow bad as a result.

You can tell a story.

You can't tell this story.

That's what you're missing. Not all stories are the same. Here, watch this-
Is the Sopranos not a good tv show just because Analyze This is a movie about a mob boss seeing a psychiatrist?
Is Buffy a bad tv show just because, um, Buffy is a movie?

But the ways in which this character study (and yes, it is a character study) is more than just the base of what you have stated is obvious. Where in this two hour movie do we see Gus Fring? Where does the movie have room for the pathos of Jesse and his girlfriend? Or Jesse's complexity? What about Skyler's boss (and Saul's henchmen)? Or even Tuco and his violence?

Yes, a movie can capture your parable perfectly. The beauty of this television series is that we saw how these people operated ... it became real. It was both hypertextualized (Gus Fring and the bomb) as well as sadly banal (Walt and Mike in their final scene).

It's not better, nor worse ... but it's very different. Not understanding that there is a difference and assuming that this story could just be a movie does an injustice to both movies and to serials.

 

[Kobold Stew]

It also nicely sets up Brooklyn Nine-Nine, in that one of the big jokes, all the way to the end, is that we conflate Andre Braugher, the actor, with Frank Pembleton, his character from Homicide, and seeing him be funny never stops breaking our brains a little bit.

(Captain Holt, of course, got to be a very fully character with a lot of other things going on. But the fact that it's Andre Braugher doing them was always inherently funny.)

Andre Braugher is such an underappreciated actor.

 

[Staffan]

I actually haven't seen Breaking Bad, but as a general thing the episodes often considered "filler" are the ones that provide resonance for the "important" ones.

Looking at Buffy season 2 (a show with which I'm more familiar), for example. I would argue that the defining episodes are School Hard (the introduction of Spike and Drusilla), What's My Line parts 1 and 2 (Buffy gets hunted by magical assassins, the introduction of Kendra, Spike doing a ritual returning Drusilla to health but himself getting paralyzed in the process), Surprise/Innocence (The Judge, Angel and Buffy doing the thing which leads to Angel losing his soul and joining the bad guys), Passion (the death of Jenny Calendar), and Becoming parts 1 and 2 (season finale, lots of stuff happening). That's 8 out of 22 episodes.

So could you remove the other 14 episodes? Hell no! Not only do they provide some overall plot progression, but they also get us invested in the characters. They get us invested in Buffy's relation with Angel, which makes his heel turn hurt that much more. We get to know Jenny Calendar, which makes us empathize with Giles when she gets fridged. We get to see the tension rise between the paralyzed Spike and the aggressive Angelus, leading to Spike's sort-of face turn. We see the cutesy budding romance between Willow and Oz.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So could you remove the other 14 episodes? Hell no! Not only do they provide some overall plot progression,

....but they also provide us Xander in a speedo.

Q.
E.
To the D. (That's what Willow said ... I mean, at the time.)

 

[amethal]

But it's also not for everyone. And that's okay! Two of the shows that I absolutely love (Rectify, The Leftovers) are also not for everyone, because they are ... depressing. I will continue to reiterate that Legion is the best superhero show ever (and arguably one of the best ever) but I know for a fact that the visual style and the plot will alienate a great many people.

"Depressing" is one word to describe Leftovers. If I were to use a few more words, I'd describe it as very, very depressing. I'm glad I watched it (on your recommendation) but I didn't like the ending as much as you did. (Maybe we interpret the ending differently?) And I certainly won't be re-watching it.

Rectify is on my "to watch" list. I'm not expecting it to be a light-hearted romp, but I am hoping it won't be quite as depressing as Leftovers. But now you've got me worried

Having said that, I recently watched the first episode of Being Human (by the BBC; not sure how widely available it is) which was billed as a dark comedy. The first episode ends with an innocent woman bleeding to death in the street, having just had her throat torn out, while two vampires stand over her, arguing viciously. It's certainly dark, but I'm failing to see the comedy.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Leftovers I thoroughly enjoyed. I cannot really recommend it to anyone because I cannot even articulate why I liked it so much. I don't have Rectify but I did watch the first episode of Legion (and do have it) and quite liked it. Need to watch the rest.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

"Depressing" is one word to describe Leftovers. If I were to use a few more words, I'd describe it as very, very depressing. I'm glad I watched it (on your recommendation) but I didn't like the ending as much as you did. (Maybe we interpret the ending differently?) And I certainly won't be re-watching it.

There are a very few endings to shows that, in my opinion, stick with you forever. (Breaking Bad, sadly, isn't one of them- it's very, very good, and I think it "stuck the landing," but it wasn't quite up to the standard of the shows leading up to it).

Sopranos.
The Shield.
The Wire.
Americans. (Not for everyone?)
The Good Place
Justified
Blake's 7
Halt and Catch Fire
....maybe Mad Men? Torn on that one. But I still think about it, obviously.

In my opinion, topping all of those ... is The Leftovers. It is perfect to me. Part of the beauty of the ending is in the question that you asked ... did we interpret it differently? That you asked is part of the reason I find it perfect. Here-

Spoiler

I believe you.

The show was filled with ambiguity, and dealt with the biggest issues of grief, loss, and faith. Faith in the biggest sense of the word, and faith in the most personal sense- the faith we have in each other. Was Nora telling the truth? Was Nora lying?

Does it matter?

Kevin comes clean to Nora. He remembers her. He didn't know what to say. So he decided that ... he was going to move past all of that and just start fresh, and have another chance. All that time he was fighting her ... he gave up. That didn't matter.

But you were right. It's not true. That's how I found you, Nora. I ... I refused to believe you were gone.

So what does Nora do? Does she come clean with her story? Or did she just need him to believe that story so she could move past it?

What do you believe? What provides you closure?

Even thinking about it now gives me shivers. Seriously, I know not everyone likes the same things ... but that was just pure art, of the kind you rarely see. I remember the same feeling when I read Pale Fire, and every single time I recall that ending, I am just overjoyed that someone had the vision and the fortitude to treat viewers like adults.

Okay, that's my artsy-fartsy rant for today.

Rectify is on my "to watch" list. I'm not expecting it to be a light-hearted romp, but I am hoping it won't be quite as depressing as Leftovers. But now you've got me worried

It's very .... different. It's much more grounded, and I think it's one of the great classics that more people should have seen, but I also think it's important to understand that it is not a comedy or one of those, "A drama, in the sense that multiple attractive people are trying to sleep with each other."

It's serious subject matter.

 

[amethal]

Thanks for the reply; hopefully this little tangent isn't too annoying for everybody else!

The thing about spoiling the ending for Leftovers is that doesn't really spoil anything but the ending. I wasn't watching the show because I wanted to find out how a particular relationship ended up. Anyway, my take on it, for what it is worth.

Spoiler: Leftovers Ending

Nora was clearly lying.

There's no way the missing 2%, spread across the globe, could make anything approaching a viable society in the time allowed. Let alone give her the means to travel from Australia to the USA, find one specific person, and then re-create a cutting-edge physics experiment.

Basically, being unable to accept Kevin's lie, she decided to come up with her own lie for him to choose to believe.

 

[Sabathius42]

I think one facet that I enjoy about "long form" types of media (4 hour movies or 5 season shows like BB) is that the pacing of character change seems to feel more "real".

You can do a 2 hour movie featuring a story of a good character gone bad, but the number of steps from good to bad will be much smaller than a 5 year show with the same arc.

To put it in different terms, the two hour movie paints a character in three shades of grey whereas the 5 year show can have 50.

This longer format also allows the same slow growth to happen for side characters. In the movie version of BB most characters would exist only to change or show the change of Walter or Jesse. They would by necessity feel less like an actual person and more like a background object.

You see the shoplifting and mineral collecting as filler but I see it as world building.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Thanks for the reply; hopefully this little tangent isn't too annoying for everybody else!

The thing about spoiling the ending for Leftovers is that doesn't really spoil anything but the ending. I wasn't watching the show because I wanted to find out how a particular relationship ended up. Anyway, my take on it, for what it is worth.

Spoiler: Leftovers Ending

Nora was clearly lying.

There's no way the missing 2%, spread across the globe, could make anything approaching a viable society in the time allowed. Let alone give her the means to travel from Australia to the USA, find one specific person, and then re-create a cutting-edge physics experiment.

Basically, being unable to accept Kevin's lie, she decided to come up with her own lie for him to choose to believe.

Spoiler

Except she wasn't responding to Kevin's lie ... she was responding to his truth. The lie (if it was a lie) wasn't for Kevin - it was for Nora (and, by extension, for the viewers).

Start with the viewers. What actually happened in the show? Where did Kevin go in those alternate world episodes? I'm not saying that there's an answer, but what I am saying is that the choices you make when choosing to answer it matter! Look at the approach you are taking with this ... you are saying that she is lying ... because her story doesn't make sense to you. In a world where 2% of the population vanished without a clue?

You see the ouroboros here, right? The show presented an explanation for rational viewers of "what it all meant," that rational viewers would reject. On the other hand, the show presented a rational explanation that was faith-based for people that rejected the rational reading of the show! Put another way- if you think she's lying (a rational response), you keep the mystery of the show. But if you accept her truth, you deny the mystery. What a conundrum!

But looking even more deeply at Nora, her character arc was entirely defined both by her belief that there was an answer to what happened to her family, and the issue of whether she would pursue that into the chamber ... and what happened at that last moment. In the end, is all that other stuff (supernatural, magical realism) real, or is it just the extraneous detritus to distract us from the yawning abyss that is reality?

Kevin and Nora don't care, because at least, at long last, they can believe in each other. Maybe that's all you can do?

 

[payn]

I think one facet that I enjoy about "long form" types of media (4 hour movies or 5 season shows like BB) is that the pacing of character change seems to feel more "real".

You can do a 2 hour movie featuring a story of a good character gone bad, but the number of steps from good to bad will be much smaller than a 5 year show with the same arc.

To put it in different terms, the two hour movie paints a character in three shades of grey whereas the 5 year show can have 50.

This longer format also allows the same slow growth to happen for side characters. In the movie version of BB most characters would exist only to change or show the change of Walter or Jesse. They would by necessity feel less like an actual person and more like a background object.

You see the shoplifting and mineral collecting as filler but I see it as world building.

Right the short format focuses on tangible results like people being killed. The long form shows us the elements that effect people less drastically but with lasting impact. Also, how that impacts the main character in ways besides death or incarceration.

 

[Mannahnin]

I'm on the page that a show and a movie tell stories in different ways. They have different properties.

There is much more room for organic character development, nuance, ups and downs in relationships, and varied plot twists in a show. While you can definitely tell a story about someone "breaking bad" in a movie, you could not tell this story.

I do think there is a little bit of filler/a few things that didn't quite work for me in the show, but overall, nah. Not a lot of filler. Lots of character development. Lots of tense scenes and plot twists. Lots of gorgeous cinematography.