I bet someone on the show is a Justified fan.

Hee! I didn't catch that, but I choose to believe it is our Art.

SFistas, Tim Goodman will be talking with/interviewing Vince Gilligan at the SFJCC. [link]

I screamed at the ending of Breaking Bad. Tho' it wasn't entirely unexpected. As soon as the boy screwed the lid down on the jar, I knew a close up of the contents would also be the last shot of the episode, although I thought the kid would fall somehow and the glass would break. Anyway, the HSQ keeps getting higher and higher.

Tim Goodman's been saying for years that he thinks Flynn will die.

Info from a TG chat:

Love the reference to Heat by Hank. A movie which involves a heist. And when the robbers bring in a new guy he kills someone without their permission, setting off a chain reaction that leads to the downfall of the main character.

Heh, Java. That's a cool catch.

Is there a less relaxing show to watch than Breaking Bad? Not a good choice to ease me off to dreamland. This episode was particularly uncomfortable and tense - I suppose they all will be from here on out.

Copper has some interesting elements, I can't tell if i like it yet.

Leverage: I like Sophie as a lobbyist running a bunch of interdependent grifts. I think the usage of "you can't con an honest man" to mean that it's harder to find the hook is okay with me. That "Everyone has a weakness"/"Do you?" conversation is fraught with something - foreshadowing or hidden meaning or something.

I seem to have fallen into the habit of giving John a review of the episode and the preview, but not about anything important at all.

Here's what I've learnt as a result of this week:

• They liked the muttonchops *a lot*
• there's a long version of the butt-slide across the car, and an animated GIF might be in the offing

My vote on the second is pretty damned clear.

And, hey! Another think coming! Just saying!

And they did quell my "can't con an honest man" issues. It wasn't used as a moral high ground, or a crutch, or an obstacle. Or even, really, a shared viewpoint. I really liked what they were doing there, in fact. Usually they just magically know the weakness. It's interesting when the person they need to influence isn't the bad person, and doesn't have the obvious places to get traction.

And, hey! Another think coming! Just saying!

I noticed that!

And they did quell my "can't con an honest man" issues. It wasn't used as a moral high ground, or a crutch, or an obstacle. Or even, really, a shared viewpoint. I really liked what they were doing there, in fact. Usually they just magically know the weakness. It's interesting when the person they need to influence isn't the bad person, and doesn't have the obvious places to get traction.

I liked that, too.

So it works because it is not "you can't cheat an honest man" but "you have to work harder to cheat an honest man"?

For me, I think the issue was mainly that they weren't actually trying to cheat him. They were trying to get him to do something they wanted him to do, and they had to work out how to lead his way.

When people say "that wasn't a con, then" if I suggest something that works against honest people, I roll my eyes, but I think this really really wasn't a con.

I mean, they were pretty much working the con in convince more than the con in confidence. And Nate mostly redirected Eliot, which is what John did to me when I initially mentioned it.

(I got into this argument elsewhere, and the person defending it said that cons hinge on expectation of profit without sufficient investment, and I asked--what about fake charities? It took three go rounds for him to say a) that's a con and b) fine, then. I did also try and get him to call Kevin Bacon dishonest for investing with Madoff, but it's amazing how people can ignore enumerated lists when they have a point to make.)

I'm wondering what Nate's deal is. I think that he has a terminal illness (like say, the one that his kid died from), and he's grooming Eliot to take over as mastermind.