Shall we anticipate the FIFTH SEASON of the AMC series "Breaking Bad"? I think I may.

they were brothers in dick

brotherhood of the (pork) sword

I think pretty much the only thing that goes against the "Gus is gay" theory is that in one of his first appearances, when he invites Walt to his home, he casually mentions his wife and kids... But they are never seen or even mentioned after that, and it certainly seems Gus lives by himself. So, was Gus just putting up appearances for Walt, or hadn't the writers yet decided he was gay? So many things, especially his whole vendetta against Don Eladio, make more sense if you assume he's gay and the other Hermano was his partner.

OTOH, if the above is true, why didn't the writers just spell it out, instead of just dropping some vague hints? Were they afraid of him getting stereotyped by the viewers, or something?

Also, they never revealed what in Gus's past was so terrifying that even Don Eladio didn't want to kill him... I guess that thing could still be revealed in the final 8 episodes, but it seems a bit irrelevant now. (Unless someone from Gus's past comes to Walt looking for revenge.)

OTOH, if the above is true, why didn't the writers just spell it out, instead of just dropping some vague hints?

Writers and audiences often enjoy a bit of ambiguity.

Also, they never revealed what in Gus's past was so terrifying that even Don Eladio didn't want to kill him... I guess that thing could still be revealed in the final 8 episodes, but it seems a bit irrelevant now. (Unless someone from Gus's past comes to Walt looking for revenge.)

― Tuomas, Tuesday, June 11, 2013 5:56 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

connections back in chile, i dont think its something thats meant to be revealed, its one of those bits of backstory thats better when it thrives in ur imagination than if it's explained

Is any other important piece of character motivation in BB dealt with such ambiguity, though?

Traditionally, gayness in mainstream movies and TV was depicted ambiguous ways, because stating it outright was thought to offend people. But I can't imagine why, in this day and age, the makers of BB would feel the need use this strategy... Unless they were afraid of the opposite reaction: that outing Gus would make people think they are reinforcing homophobic stereotypes, since he's the villain. (Though that doesn't make much sense to me either, since Gus is such an unique character, and not a stereotype of any sort.)

(x-post)

connections back in chile, i dont think its something thats meant to be revealed, its one of those bits of backstory thats better when it thrives in ur imagination than if it's explained

Yeah, that's what I thought too, but IIRC the writer guy said in some interview that Gus's Chilean past would be explored in some way. Can't remember where I read this though.

His gayness is tangential, I think. I didn't want it explained either. The photo he kept of he and his partner said enough.

Is any other important piece of character motivation in BB dealt with such ambiguity, though?

It's not really important whether he loved his hermano in a gay way or not though. All that's important from a motivational point of view is that he did love him.

Gus' homosexuality or lack thereof is not vital to the storyline, more just something interesting to speculate about. Another layer to a mysterious character.

James Burrows hard to classify as auteur since 92.8% of all his work is as hired hand, and the rest is Cheers, which he co-created but AFAIR never actually wrote

I'll be kind of disappointed if we don't find out at least a bit more about Gus's past, because it'd be a good source of 'holy shit' moments and we'd get to see Giancarlo Esposito reprise the role again. Don't really care about his sexuality though.

I'd really like to see a flashback to Walt teaching Jesse high school chemistry at some point.

just watch, they're saving that for the final episode

James Burrows hard to classify as auteur since 92.8% of all his work is as hired hand

i know meanings change, but this was p much true of all the classic Hollywood auteurs, fwiw

Yeah would make a great cold open for the finale xpost

Between this conversation about Gus and recent events on Mad Men (which I won't spoil here), I get kind of annoyed at the need to essentialize a character's sexuality as either gay or straight. Is Gus *really* gay? But he has a wife and kids! I dunno, maybe he had a special love for his partner that wasn't exactly homosexual desire. Or maybe it was, but maybe he also loves his wife in a real, non-fraudulent way. Life's complicated! Part of the problem might be that these shows sometimes handle this stuff with teasing reveals -- think of Rawls in the gay bar on The Wire (not really a spoiler because it's a three-second shot that's wholly unimportant to the plot and never elaborated upon) -- that encourage the viewer to say "A-ha! This *proves* it!" But why are we so eager to treat scenes like this as "proof," as an "answer," as something we've now figured out, rather than as an additional (and occasionally ambiguous) shade to the character?

Pretty OTM there.

More of a "straight" vs. "not straight" dichotomy in so far as it affects Mad Men era politics, no?

But why are we so eager to treat scenes like this as "proof," as an "answer," as something we've now figured out, rather than as an additional (and occasionally ambiguous) shade to the character?

Message boards.

Has there ever been a really consistent TV auteur?

I'd add Bryan Fuller.

the Rawls shot is definitely meant to be ambiguous and to layer the character with a variety of new depths depending on how you take it

i know meanings change, but this was p much true of all the classic Hollywood auteurs, fwiw

yes - note that of my list, very few ever direct, but they're identifiable as the primary author of their televisual texts. Burrows is a magnificent director of multicam sitcoms, but he's hired particularly for so many pilots because of his facility at establishing a tone and working relationships on set, that a production can then learn from and carry forward, rather than because he generates in a discernable way, or brings anything distinct to, the text

I'll be kind of disappointed if we don't find out at least a bit more about Gus's past, because it'd be a good source of 'holy shit' moments and we'd get to see Giancarlo Esposito reprise the role again. Don't really care about his sexuality though.

― Matt DC, Tuesday, June 11, 2013 9:06 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

that'd be such a waste of time with only 8 episodes left. better to leave people wanting more fring than giving us more than we need

otm

yup, if anything BSG and Lost has taught us all it's better to leave some mysteries out there

lets not talk about BSG.

Or The Wire.

Wire does not make Thermo angry.

What is BSG?

'broad sweeping generalisation', it's a britcom

Lots of meat pies and blood sausages, IIRC.

Tuomas, BSG = BattleStar Galactica. 2.5 seasons of my life i will never get back.

youre never getting back any of your life dude!

not even ilx time?! i thought there was a rebate at the end. like stoppage time.

I think pretty much the only thing that goes against the "Gus is gay" theory is that in one of his first appearances, when he invites Walt to his home, he casually mentions his wife and kids... But they are never seen or even mentioned after that, and it certainly seems Gus lives by himself. So, was Gus just putting up appearances for Walt, or hadn't the writers yet decided he was gay? So many things, especially his whole vendetta against Don Eladio, make more sense if you assume he's gay and the other Hermano was his partner.

OTOH, if the above is true, why didn't the writers just spell it out, instead of just dropping some vague hints? Were they afraid of him getting stereotyped by the viewers, or something?

― Tuomas, Tuesday, June 11, 2013 4:52 AM (3 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

FYI the writers literally did spell it out in the script. I think the take home point here is that these two loved each other, whether romantic or not, enough for max to beg for gus' life and for gus to flip his psychopath switch resulting in a life worse than death for hector. I mean what do you want here? A make-out flashback?

Also, they never revealed what in Gus's past was so terrifying that even Don Eladio didn't want to kill him... I guess that thing could still be revealed in the final 8 episodes, but it seems a bit irrelevant now. (Unless someone from Gus's past comes to Walt looking for revenge.)

― Tuomas, Tuesday, June 11, 2013 4:56 AM (3 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Is this a reference to max being killed and not gus? Don Eladio said the only reason he wasn't killed is because he knew him. Little lesson in respect, no? Im still not sure if gus was from chile.

that's all otm

Is this a reference to max being killed and not gus? Don Eladio said the only reason he wasn't killed is because he knew him. Little lesson in respect, no?

No, he said that he didn't kill Gus because of "who you are", or something to that effect. And the writer has explicitly said this is a reference to some mysterious stuff in Gus's past; it's that stuff that stopped Don Eladio from killing him.

And Gus is from Chile, or at least was living in Chile, since in the flashback Max is reminiscing of their shared past there.

no he said because i know you and the reason he knows gus is because gus has been giving don eladio's dudes free meth samples in order to get a meeting with him and don eladio didnt like that so much but probably figured gus could make him millions but youve got to show a don some respect, tuomas

yes. he did live in chile mexico and USA. still no idea where he is from

Here's the Vince Gilligan quote on that episode:

All through episode eight, Gus Fring is not wanting people to know about his background. He apparently has some backstory that’s deep and dark and allows him to avoid getting killed at the end of episode eight, but we’re wondering this whole time, “Who is this guy? Who was he in Chile? What is he trying to hide?”

(From here.)

yes ive read that

So it's the background thing that stops him from gettin killed... I'm not very good at Spanish, but I think Don Eladio says something like "I know who you are", which could just mean "you're someone I know", but in this case it means "I know about your past".

(xpost)

yes ive read that

You've read that but you still think Gilligan is wrong?

my reading was the same as Tuomas. seemed like a weird story thread that got dropped, I assume it won't be resolved now.

still not sure how that means gus didnt die because they were scared. if there is something in chile associated with gus, who at this point is handing out free meth samples from under the counter of his chicken store, that is so huge that the don of a mexican cartel is scared, why would they kill his boyfriend?

It doesn't necessarily mean they're scared, just that killing Gus would have some repercussions they don't want... Whereas killing Max is okay, because he isn't significant in the same way.

Maybe killing Gus would lead to a vendetta or something? Who knows, like Shakey said, it seems they dropped the whole Gus's mystery past thing, and it seems unlikely it'll get resolved anymore.

of course im not saying the showrunner is wrong tuomas but perhaps your interpretation is a little off? i mean here was this out of nowhere flashback with gus and a partner trying to sell meth to don eladio and how he paid for this guys college degrees and wow i didnt know pollos hermanos existed in mexico first of course youre going to wonder where or what the guy came from.

to me rather than a dropped story its more like a tacked on story with the flashback of season 3 footage and introducing the current relationship between hector and gus that will ultimately lead to the ding boom moment they knew they wanted since season 2

So it's the background thing that stops him from gettin killed... I'm not very good at Spanish, but I think Don Eladio says something like "I know who you are", which could just mean "you're someone I know", but in this case it means "I know about your past".

.........

It doesn't necessarily mean they're scared, just that killing Gus would have some repercussions they don't want... Whereas killing Max is okay, because he isn't significant in the same way.

― Tuomas, Friday, June 14, 2013 5:13 PM (54 minutes ago) Bookmark

This is exactly how it came across to me.