Breaking Bad -- "Fifty-One" -- 8/05/12
08-07-12, 02:09 PM
#102
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Breaking Bad -- "Fifty-One" -- 8/05/12
Maybe I'm missing something but it seems like people are imagining this to me. I don't see why at this point Jesse has a reason to spy on Walt. The only thing I could see is if he was somehow suspicious of Brock's poisoning last season, but there hasn't been any indication yet to show that he thinks Walt did it.
08-07-12, 02:12 PM
#103
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Breaking Bad -- "Fifty-One" -- 8/05/12
Yeah, or like someone else said it could also be a referene to what Mike said earlier in the season about Walt being a ticking time bomb.
08-07-12, 02:28 PM
#104
DVD Talk Hero
08-07-12, 04:45 PM
#105
Re: Breaking Bad -- "Fifty-One" -- 8/05/12
Did you notice that one higher up police guy, I believe Claudette's immediate superior, he played the detective that investigated Walt's disappearance and later talked to Hank about Gale's case. Good to see him again.
08-07-12, 05:09 PM
#107
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
Re: Breaking Bad -- "Fifty-One" -- 8/05/12
Okay, I get it. Walt isn't Mother Theresa by any means. Poisoning Brock last season pretty much sealed the deal with him heading to the dark side. And yeah I get it, him continuing to manufacture Meth makes him a criminal.
Now if you compared him to someone like Vic Mackey, who shot and killed an Undercover Cop, covered it up. Constantly committed adultery and also committed armed robbery. Who would you say is a more vile, despicable human being? Walt at least initially went into this world with noble intentions, but now has become consumed by it.
Now if you compared him to someone like Vic Mackey, who shot and killed an Undercover Cop, covered it up. Constantly committed adultery and also committed armed robbery. Who would you say is a more vile, despicable human being? Walt at least initially went into this world with noble intentions, but now has become consumed by it.
08-07-12, 05:50 PM
#108
Re: Breaking Bad -- "Fifty-One" -- 8/05/12
But isn't the Meth Walt makes healthier and safer than other Meth that came before his? I would say that puts him in the good guy camp .
08-07-12, 06:34 PM
#110
08-07-12, 06:44 PM
#111
Re: Breaking Bad -- "Fifty-One" -- 8/05/12
--Hank would have been dead
--Walt would have been dead
(best case scenario)
With poisoning Brock, there was a reasonable chance that Brock, Hank and Walt would live.
08-07-12, 06:44 PM
#112
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Breaking Bad -- "Fifty-One" -- 8/05/12
Walt essentially was threatening her. Regardless of if he doesn't want his kids taken away from him the way he was talking to her sounded fairly threatening. He didn't outright say that he would do anything to physically harm her, but still was threatening to damage her reputation and call into question her mental capacity. Granted she may have some issues but most of it has probably been brought on by stress relating to Walt being involved in the meth business.
08-07-12, 07:27 PM
#113
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Breaking Bad -- "Fifty-One" -- 8/05/12
I agree that Walt isnt goody two shoes, but I dont get the hate for the poisoning Brock. If Walt had not done that,
--Hank would have been dead
--Walt would have been dead
(best case scenario)
With poisoning Brock, there was a reasonable chance that Brock, Hank and Walt would live.
--Hank would have been dead
--Walt would have been dead
(best case scenario)
With poisoning Brock, there was a reasonable chance that Brock, Hank and Walt would live.
Walt is smart enough to figure out just how much Ricin was needed. I don't think Brock being dead was his intention. Could Brock have had a allergic reaction and died? Maybe. I guess one would consider him a monster just for gambling with a kids life. But it ended up doing more good than harm.
08-07-12, 07:49 PM
#115
DVD Talk God
08-07-12, 08:14 PM
#116
DVD Talk Limited Edition
08-07-12, 08:16 PM
#117
DVD Talk Limited Edition
08-07-12, 09:53 PM
#118
Re: Breaking Bad -- "Fifty-One" -- 8/05/12
Yes, he was threatening her, but it was not for sadistic pleasure. He was fighting to keep his children. What is he supposed to do, just let his wife take the kids away? Or give her flowers and chocolate and politely ask her to back down (which would not work)?
Walt may be the one speaking harshly, but it is his wife who attacked first with the threats
Walt may be the one speaking harshly, but it is his wife who attacked first with the threats
Last edited by wearetheborg; 08-07-12 at 10:00 PM.
08-07-12, 09:57 PM
#119
Re: Breaking Bad -- "Fifty-One" -- 8/05/12
Walt is smart enough to figure out just how much Ricin was needed. I don't think Brock being dead was his intention. Could Brock have had a allergic reaction and died? Maybe. I guess one would consider him a monster just for gambling with a kids life. But it ended up doing more good than harm.
I love some of the hypocrisy in this thread. How many of you contribute most of your savings to charities? I can pretty much guarentee that you can save several children's lives with charity money.
Logically, when you dont do this, you are doing the same thing as Walt --- you are placing your and your families well being above that of random kids that you do not know. You do this every day. But it is not in your face and this allows you to ignore it.
Last edited by wearetheborg; 08-07-12 at 10:03 PM.
08-07-12, 10:20 PM
#121
Re: Breaking Bad -- "Fifty-One" -- 8/05/12
In both cases, your actions dictate what happens to a childs life.
So logically yes, they are equivalent.
There was a quiz posted recently on how consistent people are with regard to ethics/morality/right-wrong. They had more examples like this.
EDIT: A kind of example that can be given
There is a button in front of you.
Scenario 1:
Pressing button will kill a child. You are given the option of pressing the button, and if you press the button, you will get 1 million $ and the child will die. Thus, this is like a hit contract.
Scenario 2:
You are given a million dollars upfront. No strings attached. You won the lottery.
Now, if you press the button, you will SAVE the childs life, but you will also lose the 1 million dollars that you were just given.
What will you do in scenarios 1 and 2?
So logically yes, they are equivalent.
There was a quiz posted recently on how consistent people are with regard to ethics/morality/right-wrong. They had more examples like this.
EDIT: A kind of example that can be given
There is a button in front of you.
Scenario 1:
Pressing button will kill a child. You are given the option of pressing the button, and if you press the button, you will get 1 million $ and the child will die. Thus, this is like a hit contract.
Scenario 2:
You are given a million dollars upfront. No strings attached. You won the lottery.
Now, if you press the button, you will SAVE the childs life, but you will also lose the 1 million dollars that you were just given.
What will you do in scenarios 1 and 2?
Last edited by wearetheborg; 08-07-12 at 10:26 PM.
08-07-12, 10:33 PM
#122
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Breaking Bad -- "Fifty-One" -- 8/05/12
I was at a red light a few weeks ago and there was a man begging for money. I didn't give him any. By not giving him money, I basically butchered him and ate his flesh for dinner. I'm a sicko.
If only Jeffrey Dahmer would have given donations to the March of Dimes, everything else he did could be forgiven.
If only Jeffrey Dahmer would have given donations to the March of Dimes, everything else he did could be forgiven.
08-07-12, 10:39 PM
#123
Banned
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Breaking Bad -- "Fifty-One" -- 8/05/12
I was at a red light a few weeks ago and there was a man begging for money. I didn't give him any. By not giving him money, I basically butchered him and ate his flesh for dinner. I'm a sicko.
If only Jeffrey Dahmer would have given donations to the March of Dimes, everything else he did could be forgiven.
If only Jeffrey Dahmer would have given donations to the March of Dimes, everything else he did could be forgiven.
08-07-12, 10:52 PM
#124
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Breaking Bad -- "Fifty-One" -- 8/05/12
There is a button in front of you.
Scenario 1:
Pressing button will kill a child. You are given the option of pressing the button, and if you press the button, you will get 1 million $ and the child will die. Thus, this is like a hit contract.
Scenario 2:
You are given a million dollars upfront. No strings attached. You won the lottery.
Now, if you press the button, you will SAVE the childs life, but you will also lose the 1 million dollars that you were just given.
What will you do in scenarios 1 and 2?
Scenario 1:
Pressing button will kill a child. You are given the option of pressing the button, and if you press the button, you will get 1 million $ and the child will die. Thus, this is like a hit contract.
Scenario 2:
You are given a million dollars upfront. No strings attached. You won the lottery.
Now, if you press the button, you will SAVE the childs life, but you will also lose the 1 million dollars that you were just given.
What will you do in scenarios 1 and 2?
---
EDIT:
There is a difference between those two scenarios though, albeit slight. Scenario 1 requires action for the child to die and Scenario 2 requires inaction. Acting to effect a certain consequence is different than failing to act and a consequence that was already going to happen taking place. In Scenario 1 you are the one that is actively killing the child, whereas in Scenario 2 someone else is going to kill the child and will die if you fail to act. You are to blame in Scenario 2, but second only to the person actually doing the killing. In other words, the real culprit is the one who did the killing, not the one who stood idly be.
I absolutely wouldn't push the button in Scenario 1. And I am confident that I would push the button in Scenario 2. Someone's life is worth more than money and I don't think it would be hard to find a lot of people who would agree with that. Just because someone doesn't donate money to a charity though doesn't mean they are guilty of the moral shortcoming of the hypothetical individual who didn't push the button in Scenario 2.
Walt is no longer a character I can root for because he has lost the redeeming qualities he had at the start of the show. He isn't doing this to provide for his family or out of desperation; he's doing it because it makes him feel powerful and he gets off on it. Walt has become just as bad as Gus, using children as though they were pawns in a game. Anyone remember Tomas and Jesse's reaction to his death? Walt didn't kill Brock, but does anyone really think he would have cared if the kid died? Brock was expendable, just like pretty much everyone else in Walt's eyes.
Last edited by kstublen; 08-07-12 at 11:09 PM.