what are you doing to us gilligan


Vince Gilligan:“If you go back and watch the very first episode of Better Call Saul, there’s no indication at all that Chuck McGill is anything but a loving brother who is damaged mentally or emotionally at some level….there’s no indication that he’s going to be the villain of the whole piece.

That’s for a good reason. Because we had no idea.

But something happened along the way. You <to Peter> describe how it came to you.

Peter Gould: To me, the moment was watching Michael and Bob do the very first scene between Jimmy and Chuck. A scene in the pilot episode that Vince and I wrote together….we both saw something in Michael McKean’s performance. A tremendous pride. Michael brought to this character not just vulnerability. He wasn’t just a big baby who needed to be taken care of. He was someone who had towering pride.

When we went back to the writer’s room, we said “We invented this character to tell us something about Jimmy. But what is it like from Chuck’s point of view?” The more we thought about it, the more we thought about how hard it is to be Jimmy’s older brother. There’s a jealousy there. That pride was a shield that Chuck was living behind. That fascinated us. The best thing about doing a series like this is that the characters get to talk back to you. You get to observe the performances of the actors and take that knowledge back to the writer’s room and use it to shape the story.”

–Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould on the relationship of Chuck and Jimmy in Better Call Saul

Stills from Season 3 of Better Call Saul (2017)

Q: Breaking Bad was such a unique looking show and you part of the group responsible for setting so much of that template. Can you quantify how Saul is aesthetically different from Breaking Bad?

A - Michael Slovis: “Absolutely! If you look at the formal frames of Saul, you look at the fact that the camera is on the dolly 90 percent of the time, you look at how we’re using zoom lenses to do slow zooms in, we’re not afraid of those onSaul. Hand-held, which was what I called the “white noise” of Breaking Bad, is used only for effect on Saul and even more than on Breaking Bad, Vince [Gilligan] and Peter [Gould] have really embraced the ideas of “less is more” when it comes to cutting. So you saw my episode, so you saw the one-r where Jonathan [Banks] walks into the house and we go through the entire house and I made a point of seeing almost every wall of that house, so that you would never guess what was going to happen in that house happens. Or the walk with Harry and Kim through the law office, which goes on for a minute-and-a-half or whatever. Vince and Peter were very clear at the beginning that if you want to do things like that, they’re behind you 100 percent. I’m somebody who believes that cutting should serve the purpose of relaying new information to the audience, because a cut is disruptive and the old school way of telling stories when television was in its infancy or developing in the ‘60s or '70s, of turning in five different-sized shots for every scene and then the producer goes and cuts it into a scene later on, it just doesn’t work anymore. So the whole cinematic approach that we were part of developing and contributing to on Breaking Bad has now developed an audience that is very sophisticated in terms of what they watch. And they get it. Whether they are aware of it, consciously or not, they can feel and see the difference between shows that are really well choreographed and well blocked with the camera and shows that aren’t.”

– from ‘Breaking Bad’ Grad Michael Slovis Talks 'Better Call Saul’ “Homecoming” and Helping Shape 'Preacher’ by Daniel Fienberg, THR


Last year, you celebrated the 20th anniversary of The X-Files. What was the Comic-Con experience like for you?

DUCHOVNY: That was cool. We did the San Diego one, and that was fun because Chris was there, and a bunch of the writers were there: Vince Gilligan and Howard Gordon. I did one in New York with Gillian.

It’s easy to make fun of fandom, but when you’re sitting on the other side, 20 years out of doing a show, and these people are still interested and want to talk about it, it crosses over into me being really touched. I’m grateful and thankful. It started in a little room in Vancouver, and none of us knew what we were doing, and here we are 20 years later, and we’re still talking to people who are interested in it, and I think, “Wow, life is strange and wonderful in some areas.”

Interview Magazine, April 2014

Dan Harmon on His Surprising Return to Community and His Approach to Season 5 - IGN

IGN: None of the three Season 5 episodes sent to press really deal with any of the potential romantic pairings on the series. I know you’ve always had a lot of thoughts about how much you want to lean into or not lean into all of the “Will they hook up?” possibilities.

Harmon: I’ve always been really cautious about it. It’s weird for me to deal with, because on one hand it’s one of the most fundamental forces of our lives, is the attractions to each other. On the other hand, this ensemble show can’t really suffer the assembling of a couple within it. I just feel like that will make the show not feel like a family anymore. But at the same time, at the risk of sounding gross, part of family is sexual tension. [Laughs] If you’re not actually related to the people, that is! If you’re trapped on a desert island… I mean, even Gilligan’s Island had some degree of addressing it. Ginger’s an attractive woman and had sexual power over Gilligan, and she could get what she wants in certain ways. You know, they used that fact to tell some stories, but in the larger picture, it’s about a group of castaways on an island, and you don’t stop Gilligan’s Island and have Skipper look at Gilligan and say, “You know what? I’m sorry you turned invisible. I absolutely love you. Let’s get married,” and then start dedicating the show to Skipper and Gilligan’s wedding and stuff. That’s just stuff that feels like something you do if you know you’re going to get cancelled, for instance, because it’s going to feel like the end of the show. So I think there’s a lot of viewers who are in relationships who probably go to TV to escape relationships. [Laughs] Or they curl up with their loved one in a satisfied way and want to watch a show about an unlikely family dealing with larger human issues than just “I love you. Do you love me back?” and “Where did I put the condoms?” and things that would turn it into a very specific kind of show, instead of this one.

You stand Jeff next to Annie, you feel the energy crackle off the screen. In other ways than I thought, there is a distinct, chemical lack of chemistry between Jeff and Britta. There’s a beautiful kind of ex-girlfriend/sibling, familiar bond between them. I really like to see them go on funny missions together, and I like to see Jeff and Annie go on more idealistic adventures, and I like to address the fact that “We’re all gorgeous, and we’re all single. I’m a man, you’re a woman, and that makes things difficult. I have feelings.” And we do go there within the 13 episodes in a relatively large way. Obviously I can’t really go into more detail than that. But I always take very special care to, as pretentious as this sounds, let the characters make the decisions as they would if they were really alive, which is sort of randomly and over time. I never want to break a story where I’ve predetermined like, "You people are gonna f**k up, and here’s how it happens, and here’s why that’s a story.” It’s impossible to describe what I do without sounding like the most pretentious snob in the world, but I try to leave the plot mechanisms to the actual stories, because life throws stories at you – but it does not throw relationships at you. We manipulate ourselves and each other; that’s how relationships happen. We make decisions or fall into an attraction with somebody. I try to incorporate that passionate randomness into the stories that we break. There are points where I go, “Okay, this is the moment where we realize that so-and-so feels this way. It feels like the right current, it feels like the character does feel this way, so this is how this is going to happen.” Then we make that decision, and we try to make it very organically. I guess that’s about as much as I can say. We definitely do go there this season. There are developments and revelations.

anonymous asked:

What type of food do you feed Gilligan? I'm getting a dog but what's the best food to feed it? I feel like you would be the person to ask


I prefer Science Diet (I use T/D large bites for my tiny dog to help his teefers). Science Diet is tested by, like, actual smart people, using a fleet of beagles. I’m not lying. A whole fleet of beagles who live amazingly comfortably. 

Don’t feed your puppy puppy food after one year. Also, for that first year, feed them a good amount. They’re a puppy. Then cut it back accordingly. 

Beyond that, just be aware of pet food packaging. There is little to no regulations on pet foods, so manufacturers can slap whatever healthy-sounding word (i.e., organic) on the bag they want by only meeting the tiniest of standards. The AAFCO statement is one of the only real standards. 

Furthermore, since we’re going down this rabbit hole, I think good pet food does two things: 

1) It’s healthier for the pet –> longer life –> yay.

2) **If you get into the habit of paying for better food, it gives your pet more value. 

**For the same reason that people shouldn’t gives pets away for “free to a good home,” only buying cheap food is a bad idea. Investing in your pet fiscally means that later on, if something goes wrong, it doesn’t seem crazy or unfeasible to do regular maintenance or needed procedures.

Hope this helps. Also, I’m not saying Science Diet is the be all and end all. There’s Royal Canin, Iams, and some grocery store brands have some okay options, too. Good luck! And congrats!