2) If you can't appreciate all the scenes where Mike's doing 180 detective work with no dialogue, then do yourself a favor and never watch any old westerns or gangster movies, lop off your cock and start watching soap operas and Real Housewives shows instead.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3580898&forum_id=2#33046822)

A tall, high T former athlete was clearly intentional and brilliant casting. Mousy law shrew eventually gives up, gets engaged, pregnant and goes mommy track. The character is an extended critique of Lean In, and she's a perfect avatar for it.

The only other option was fat law shrew, but that wouldn't work as a romantic interest and they also hit that archetype PERFECTLY in season 2.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3580898&forum_id=2#33046956)

The detective work scenes are fun to watch but there are way too many of them at this point. It's like they have no idea what to do with his character, but they're good at cinemetography so they just give him a cool-looking set piece that doesn't really do anything in terms of narrative. It's sure as shit not enough to make the show not-boring or have any real sense of direction other than "it's arty!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3580898&forum_id=2#33047066)

It's seriously low IQ to miss that she's totally complicit in making Jimmy become Saul. You're missing a big enough theme of the show that you should seriously consider not watching and seek out something more your speed like the Walking Dead.

Your argument that they've reused the Mike detective scene schtick too much is wrong, but not as blatantly wrong as your critique of Kim. But it's clear they are playing with the audience's anticipation of meeting Gus (complete with Season 2 cliffhanger and coded acrostic red herring in the ep titles), so I don't have much of a problem granting them that artistic license. I.e. it's blatantly obvious they're doing this with intention and they clearly know where the character ends up, so it's merely a question of the pace of getting there, and not (LOL) that they have "no idea what to do" with the co-protagonist.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3580898&forum_id=2#33047199)

Or you've spent so much time being "redpilled" that you see it wherever you want to. Lmfao at relating IQ to fucking television, it's not gravity's rainbow or some shit.

so it's merely a question of the pace of getting there, and not (LOL) that they have "no idea what to do" with the co-protagonist.

Gee, that sounds an awful lot like having no idea what to do, seeing as how the audience knows how the show ends and it's all about pacing and building character arcs.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3580898&forum_id=2#33047450)

my wife and I were trying to remember wtf happened last season and came up blank.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3580898&forum_id=2#33047163)

most of jimmy's scenes are with her, and it's just a boring pairing.

they want a female lead, so they aren't going to get rid of her. but her presence drags down the product.

they need to start getting jimmy involved with real underhanded shit; the audience is getting sick of the "he has a heart and is conflicted" stuff. we get it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3580898&forum_id=2#33047570)