Talk:Better Call Saul season 6/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wrapped?

This says 613 (season 6, episode 13). @The Optimistic One and @Drovethrughosts, your thoughts? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem so. It also looks like it was only filmed last month as well. The Optimistic One (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Very possible. But we should wait for more sources that state the filming has indeed concluded, which I imagine will happen in a few days. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because seasons don't always shoot episodes in chronological order. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Filming wrapped yesterday, February 9, according to several instagram posts from several crew members - here and here. But since these aren't official publications lets hold off on adding it to the page. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Bob just tweeted that yesterday it finished shooting but I am not sure how you cite tweets here Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is a third-party source. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

How should we divide the episodes?

Well, the series has officially confirmed to be split in half, even if there is (I assume) a six-week break in between them. Should we put "Part 1" and "Part 2" dividers in the episode list? And should I do that for the episodes for the template as well? I think we should, considering that the two halves will likely be nominated for different Emmy ceremonies. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure since most CW show seasons (like The Flash seasons 1 to 5) don't have these dividing labels, even though they have midseason finales. The Flash seasons 6-present are exceptions because of the introduction of the "graphic novel" format. Since Breaking Bad season 5 part 2 premiered a year after part 1, both parts were nominated for different Emmy ceremonies. But Saul season 6 appears to be broadcast over two consecutive runs in 2022, hence I feel the table shouldn't be divided like Breaking Bad season 5. But let's wait and see. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: According to this, the split is primarily for the series to be nominated for separate emmy ceremonies: "The split will allow Better Caul Saul to compete for Emmys both this year and in 2023, as eligibility for the latter begins in June." Therefore I think we should split. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Cooper's Bar

The section claims "the series is confirmed to be connected to the Better Call Saul continuity" but this is nowhere to be found in the citation at the end from Variety. The Screen Rant cite claims this ("but the producers have confirmed the miniseries will still be in the Better Call Saul continuity"), but literally no other source, including Variety, Deadline, Rolling Stone or the official press release from AMC claim this, all of which are more reputable than Screen Rant. Cooper's Bar has no relation to Better Call Saul besides it starring Rhea Seehorn, and she's playing a different character. Thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts: Variety says, "AMC revealed Thursday three new original short-form series connected to the world of 'Better Call Saul' will debut this spring: animated series 'Slippin' Jimmy'; 'Cooper's Bar,' starring 'Saul's' Rhea Seehorn; and new episodes of the 'Better Call Saul Employee Training Video' series.". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

At first I thought it is an unrelated series since Seehorn seemingly plays a different character. But after Dude's comments, I think Kim is playing a con. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Two parts

I think that given in the sources that the sit... regardless how short it is...assures that S6 has two possible Emmy season periods is reason to consider it as two parts. That timing is very specific for that purpose. --Masem (t) 23:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC

@Masem: I was initially in favor of splitting them at first. My biggest issue is that they are not being marketed as "Part 1" or "Part 2"....they are nowhere on the poster or advertisements anywhere. For Mad Men (season 7) and Breaking Bad (season 5), both halves of the season were marketed as "Part 1" and "Part 2" when they came out, and they are on their DVD/Blu-Ray box sets. Not to mention, both halves of the seasons each had their own promotional posters as well. Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Then we should wait for more posters. AMC said two-parts so we should say two-parts. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Some Dude From North Carolina: here's the thing, DID amc say specifically that it would air in two "parts"? A majority of the sources, Variety aside, have said that it is airing in "two halves", that could just be referring to the programming schedule of when they will air. Is there a direct source from AMC that specifically call these "Part 1" and "Part 2"? Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, AMC said it would air in two parts (press release). Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Some Dude From North Carolina: Okay then. Shall we split the series overview box, the episode list, as well as the episode template on the bottom to reflect that they are Part 1 and Part 2 then? And leave it a note in all three saying that if they want to revert, then to come back to this talk page? Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Should be the same as Breaking Bad (season 5), yes. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Walt and Jesse confirmed?

It would be embarrassing if a reputed news website like Variety took to false headlines for click baiting. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

They are reporting from a major press event where the crew and cast are discussing the show. That's not click baiting. --Masem (t) 04:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

"'Are we gonna see Walt and Jesse on the show?' Instead of evading, I'll just say yeah," Gould said. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Potential publication on Netflix

I don't live in US and I would like to know when it would be published on Netflix? The Wolak (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

In my country, s6 premieres on 19 April on Netflix. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Ascribing motives for actions

We cannot go and ascribe motives for actions unless it is spoken directly in show or we have cast and crew insight on the motives, otherwise it is 100% original research. Even using what third party source claim without support of cash and crew statements are a problem.

For example with Nacho's death, yes it could be that he did not trust Gus and thus took his life his own way. But just as possible. He could have trusted Gus enough that he used the hostage situation to assert how he paralyzed Hector as to absolve Gus of any part of ghat to further gain Gus's trust and thus assure Gus will se to the safety of his father. But which one is right we done know without insight of the crew. Thus it is better to write what happened without trying to explain motive. --Masem (t) 18:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Masem: Respectfully disagree. In "Rock and Hard Place" there's only one reason for Nacho to kill himself -- he doesn't trust Gus to hold up his end of the deal they made -- that if he blamed someone other than Gus, then pretended to run, Victor would kill him quickly to save him from being tortured by the Salamancas. The circumstances make it obvious. The idea that only a writer saying so directly in an interview is a satisfactory explanation makes no sense. That would be like saying that we can't know Nacho ran from the motel because he feared being killed by the Cousins on the grounds that a writer hasn't said "Nacho ran because he feared being killed by the Cousins" in an interview. The circumstances and the context make the motivation obvious.

Billmckern (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

(trying again) I don't see why Macho's killing himself should necessarily be explained in terms of a single motive. I tend to agree that it's safer to just recount the visible plot. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

In writing any type of plot summary we shouldn't be trying to ascribe any type of unexplained motive (lacking in show explanation or cast/crew clarification) even if it seems obvious...eg we should only be saying something like "As the Cousins surround the motel, Nacho steals a truck and flees." Here, on Nacho's death, there are so many unspoken things going on that we can only guess from expressions and dead spaces in conversations that we absolutely should not guess why Nacho decided against Gus's plan. We simply should describe what we can see without guessing or interpretation. --Masem (t) 18:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

To add here is an interview with writer Gordon Smith [1] which goes on to say that Nacho acted the way he did as to go out the way he wanted after being stuck between a rock and hard place for so long. Nothing about distrust of Gus or the like. So that claim would be wrong. --Masem (t) 19:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a very interesting insight from Gordon Smith, who stresses that Nacho was tired of both playing sides, not just one. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, Nacho was tired of playing both sides, but he made a deal with only one side, and he had every reason to think that that one side wouldn't uphold its end. If Gus double-crossed him, which Nacho had every reason to expect, he'd have been tortured by the Salamancas. So he killed himself to ensure he wouldn't fall into the hands of the Salamancas. It's very obvious.

In fact, Nacho's motive is so obvious I'll predict right now that upcoming episodes will reveal Nacho and Mike planned the night before for Nacho to kill himself, just in case Gus didn't keep his word.

Having said all that, I can see which way this discussion is going and I'm not going to keep arguing just for the sake of arguing. So write the plot summary how you want.

Billmckern (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The guy who wrote that episode doesn't think it's so obvious? But thanks for your prediction. That would be a revelation. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Cold open

Should the article mention / discuss the cold open? Should it ever appear in the episode synopsis? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Only when they are the Gene sequences as they stand as separate from the plot. Within the 200 word ep summaries here, there's simply not enough space to treat the cold open otherwise as a separate scene. --Masem (t) 11:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Unless the cold open is directly impactful on the rest of the plot (i.e. not mentioning it would leave out crucial plot details) then there is no need to mention it. If someone wants to find out more on the cold open for a particular episode they can just view that episode's article FishandChipper (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think in the case of "Black and Blue," it was an integral plot device. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

We only see the construction the sculpture in the cold open, we dont find out its significance until the final 5 mins of the episode. Plus the summary already explains what the purpose of sculpture is in the final line anyway. FishandChipper (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the narrative fully explains the significance of the sculpture. And we currently have "which was a gift from Werner’s construction crew". But I thought it was only ostensibly a gift from the crew. Did it appear is a previous episode? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

While never specifically stated to be from the construction crew im pretty sure it is unmistakably from one or all of them (The object in the statue being used in construction, the text being in German and basically saying "From your Boys with love" etc.) FishandChipper (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I thought it was all part of the ruse to fool Margarete. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

No, we see in Magic Man that Werner's crew did genuinly care about Werner, I believe the statue (along with the cards) were genuine gifts for a grieving Margarethe and not simply part of a ruse. FishandChipper (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Was just wondering if the cold open needed some kind of explanation (perhaps they all do, but that's the whole point). I guess it is put into context by the narrative at the very end. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Like I said before, most cold opens are generally unrelated to the overall plot and simply serve as a neat opening so including all of them seems redundant. FishandChipper (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Margarethe tells Lalo that Werner called his crew "my boys." The German inscription on the sculpture is translated as "With Love ...Your Boys." I think that makes the connection between the sculpture and Werner's crew obvious. Lalo took the sculpture, which has a maker's label. What will likely happen in the near future is Lalo will use the label to find the maker, then obtain from the maker details on the purchasers (Werner's crew). He'll then approach Werner's crew for information about the project they were working on, which will lead him to Gus's meth lab.

Billmckern (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I dont really see any other possible way for Lalo's story to progress other than exactly what you have outlined. FishandChipper (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how our personal predictions about the future plot should inform how the episode synopsis is written, lol. My point was more that the cold open is somewhat opaque, until it is resolved, in the final seconds. If that's the intention, and the synopsis should mirror that, so be it. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC) p.s. the theft now debunked, it seems.

In reality this cold open doesn't actually provide any plot details. If it were removed from the episode then it would still make perfect sense. Just as removing it from this plot synopsis still makes perfect sense. FishandChipper (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

No objections. Yes, the person who makes the sculpture is not revealed and is incidental anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

And I point out that this is specifically on a 200-word summary of an episode where every word should be essential to summarizing the plot. When we have room to breathe on the episode page itself, given we have production information about that scene, then its inclusion in the more "roomier" 400-word summary is fine. --Masem (t) 12:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, we're looking for brevity here and including an non-plot important scene makes no sense FishandChipper (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I assume you mean "a non-plot-important scene", lol. I agree there's ample coverage at "Black and Blue". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

Though it might be my computer, or it might be google, or it might be an update, how many reviews do y'all see for this season on Rotten Tomatoes? I remember seeing 61 last week but now I see only 33. Anyone else see this? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

It says 67 for me. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

67 for me as well. The Optimistic One (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)