u/KausGo

Do you think the plurbs did/would do animal testing in order to develop a virus tailored to the immune? Humans, in episode 1, clearly did extensive animal testing in order to develop the first strain until it worked. And its quite unlikely that even with the collective knowledge and intelligence of the human race, the plurbs would find the answer without any kind of experimentation at all. Trial and error would still be necessary - but would that trial involve animals?

Obvious answer would be no, since the plurbs can't harm living things.

On the other hand, they did say they do not consider spreading the virus as causing harm. So testing it on those animals with the intention of infecting them should be okay.

But a lot of those animals might end up dying as part of those trials. That should be considered "harm" right?

However, they're only limited to not intending harm. If the animal does get harmed as an unintentional consequence - like a housepet getting eaten by a coyote because they set it free - they're fine with that.

But why test on animals at all when there are human subjects available? Clearly they care less about the plurbed bodies than they do about other living things.

Because animal testing is faster, more efficient, consumes fewer resources and provides more experimental control. No reason why they can't do both simultaenously.

So... do you think they would? Why or why not?

How different do you think Carol's journey would've been had Helen survived the joining? Do you think she'd have ended up in a different place or would her personality drive her to the same conclusion regardless?

The non-infected have a whole range of perception towards the plurbs. On one extreme, there is Manusos, who thinks that because his mother has changed, she isn't his mother anymore. He believes that the original humans are gone and their bodies were stolen by this alien entity that's speaking to him through them. Whether or not the original people can come back, the people in front of him are no longer human.

On the other extreme are Kusimayu and Laxmi - who believe their relatives are the same individuals, just changed a little bit. That they might know more and feel more, but everything that made them them - their individual likes and dislikes, things they value and how they'd react - are still the same. They cannot accept the idea that everyone they love has disappeared overnight, so they choose to believe the fantasy instead.

And the hive plays into it. Even though the plurbs can't lie, they keep up the pretense of normalcy as much as they can for the sake of the non-infected.

Kusimayu is an obvious example. Her village before her turning still looks normal. People go around their work in a random, normal way instead of the organized, hyper-efficient way they do otherwise. Animals are still kept penned up, even though they've been set free everywhere else in the world. They greet each-other and talk to each-other, even though there is no need for them to do so. And the moment Kusimayu turns, they abandon the pretense as well as the village.

Same goes for Laxmi. Her son doesn't need her to hold his hand when they board the plane - but he lets her because that's what she expects. We know that the plurbs would rather subsist entirely on their nutritional drinks, but in the scene where Laxmi calls Carol to yell at her, you can see Ravi eating ice-cream in the background.

And then there is the lunch scene where the family-member plurbs are seated with the non-infected, while the others act as servant. Not just that, but every plurb is served their past favorite dish, even though, as we learn, the very concept of having a favorite is meaningless to them, since they love all food equally. They even put up a show of appreciating the food - like Laxmi's husband telling Laxmi's mother "just like my mom used to make". What would be the point of saying that when they already share this information mentally? Other than putting on a show, that is.

You can see the effect of this play-acting when Laxmi asks "so you're vegetarian?" - even as her son eats chicken tenders right next to her. Unconcsiously, she has drawn a distinction between the hive and the individual. Her son is still her son - a kid who likes chicken tenders and icecream, who needs to be shielded from profanity and sex - and the hive is rest of the world. And of course, she gets defensive whenever Carol comes close to breaking that illusion.

Which brings us to Carol, who lies somewhere in the middle. Like Manusos, she understands that the plurbs are not the people they used to be. But she is so desperate for human connection, that she ends up individualizing them anyway. She asks Zosia about what she used to like and her past relationships as if that information has any relevance to the personality of the thing in front of her. And once again, the hive plays into it, using her desperation to manipulate her.

Which brings me to the question - how do you think Carol's perception might've changed had Helen survived? Do you think she'd end up more like Laxmi or would she still end up more like Manusos?

No doubt, like others, Carol wouldn't want to believe that the woman she loves is gone. She'd want to believe Helen is still Helen and no doubt, the hive would play along.

But she simply cannot have the same relationship with them that she did with Helen. Helen wouldn't let her drive after a few drinks - the hive offered to remove the alcohol interlock device. Helen can refuse to tell her about the bestseller list because she wants her to enjoy the moment - the hive can't refuse to answer. Helen can be sarcastic and critical - the hive has nothing but praise. Helen can stand up for herself, refusing to drink even when Carol pushes her - the hive would give in instantly "if it makes you happy".

So how long before Carol realizes that the very nature of their relationship has changed? That "that's not Helen because Helen would never do that"? What lines would Carol never cross with Helen that she did with Zosia? And far do you think the hive can keep pretending to be Helen to sell the fantasy to Carol?

Then how do Walt's final resolution with them make sense?

Breaking Bad is a tightly written narrative and bringing Elliot and Gretchen back in the end wasn't simply about Walt finding a way to get his family the money. Walt's interaction with them is meant to be a resolution to his long-standing resentment towards them for "stealing" his research, but the way it is resolved doesn't really fit the final part of Walt's narrative - not unless they actually did something wrong.

For most part of the show, Walt is proficient at lying to himself. From "I'm doing this for my family" to "I can fix things" to "Everything will be okay now that..." etc. The end is supposed to be a measure of redemption for him - he accepts that he can't fix things, he accepts that he made selfish choices and that he messed everything up. All he wants to do in the end is help out however he can, even if its not enough to earn their forgiveness.

He helps Skyler out by giving her Hank's location, but doesn't try to impose any money on her.

He sets Jesse free and gives him the chance to kill him, even accepting that he wants it himself.

He doesn't try to force a confrontation with Jr or Marie, accepting that they are going to hate him and maybe they are better off that way.

At the same time, he also gets even with people who screwed him over - like Jack's gang and Lydia.

How he deals with Elliot and Gretchen clearly falls into the latter category. He clearly intimidates them and leaves them fearing for his life - and that wouldn't fit his character progression unless his anger towards them was narratively justified. At this point in the story, Walt is supposed to genuinely recognize and accept *his* mistakes and him saying "this is where you get to make it right" suggests he's forcing them to correct *their* mistake.

I doubt it was about the interview he saw on TV. After all, they were simply trying to distance themselves from Walt's current legacy. He wouldn't have gotten pissed if Marie or Jr called him a psychopath on TV, right? No, the interview was triggered something deeper which pushed Walt into action.

I know the prevailing view in this sub is that Elliot and Gretchen didn't do anything wrong and Walt made them into villains in his head to mitigate his own screwup. But if that was the case, Walt's final act would've been to realize that and go to them for help (like maybe what he should've done in the first place). They could've been shown to be genuinely nice people who accept Walt's request to give his family some money (whether his or theirs) because they feel sorry for an old friend they used to care about. The fact that Walt had to threaten them into compliance suggests that their sympathy for Walt was always more of a pretense.

Does this change anything about what you think happened in the past between them?

Personally, I'm yet to reach a conclusion about what this means. Even without considering this final act, I didn't buy either of the extreme versions presented. I don't buy Walt's story that they manipulated him into leaving or pushed him out. Nor do I buy Gretchen's version that Walt simply abandoned the company out of nowhere.

My current interpretation is that Walt did feel inferior upon meeting Gretchen's family and he ended things without adequate explanation. Things got awkward and tense at work after that and that tension culminated in Walt leaving. Neither side was explicitly and both had an understandable human reaction to the end of their relationship. Sure, Walt was probably resentful for feeling like he had to leave and maybe Gretchen and Elliot actually did feel guilty for using his research, but there was no malice or unchecked egos that made things turn sour between them.

But that's without how it ended. The resolution suggests that they actually did do something to screw Walt over - like maybe make things uncomfortable to get him to leave or deny him any credit or profits.

What do you think?

At what point in the story do you think Walt crossed the point of no return where Hank is concerned.

This discussion isn't about your perspective on Walt, its about Hank's. And Hank has a very binary worldview in how he sees people.

He sees some people as bad - scum-of-the-earth cockroaches that don't deserve any empathy of consideration, even if he doesn't know for sure that they're guilty of anything wrong. People usually connected to the drugs like Jesse and Wendy and even the janitor from Walt's school. Even though Hank figured that the guy was innocent of stealing lab equipment, being an ex-con and smoking pot was bad enough in Hank's eyes that he didn't lose a night's sleep over ruining the guy's life.

On the other hand, others - particularly his family members - are good people who deserve a break even when they do something wrong.

He doesn't care that Jr tried to buy beer - he cares more about the kid calling him instead of his dad.

Marie steals stuff, but she's going through a hard time and working it out in therapy.

And of course, he's willing to give Walt a pass for a lot of "bad stuff".

Walt tried pot? That's just funny.

Walt might've had an affair? The guy is acting out because he's an underachiever.

Walt got in trouble with the cops? He has cancer and his wife left him - give him a break.

Walt got into gambling? Didn't know he had it in him.

So here's the thought experiment - at some point in the story Walt comes clean to Hank about everything. Basically everything that has happened upto that point that Walt knows about. What do you think is the point upto which Hank can get past it? As in say "Buddy, you screwed up, I get it. But you can still make it right".

And beyond this point he says "You need to go down at any cost"?

During Walt's Gliding over all montage?

That montage of Walt cooking and making millions covers about 5-6 months worth of time, right? What was Hank doing that whole time? Last we see him, he's depressed that the 11 guys in prison got shanked and his case fell apart. And he doesn't pick it back up until he finds the book. Did he just give up on the investigation?

Hank was always pretty obsessed with Blue Sky, even when the rest of the DEA kept trying to get him off it. Gomez suggests "Heisenberg" was Jimmy in-and-out and the the blue sky in the streets after his arrest is old stock being sold - Hank doesn't buy it. His boss keeps trying to promote him elsewhere - Hank keeps making excuses to stay on this case. He brings them leads on Gus being behind blue sky and they don't buy it.

This goes on even after Gus is exposed. Hank thinks its a mop-up job at first, but then comes to believe that someone is still pulling the strings behind the scenes. Someone is still making and selling blue sky and paying Gus' men to stay quiet. His bosses tell him to let go of his pet project - he doesn't. They tell him "no more budget for going after Mike" - he goes after the lawyer instead.

And then 11 men in prison get shanked. That should be proof that Hank's right, right? Someone is still ramping up the operation.

Moreover, this prison killing should be a huge pie in the face for the DEA. Here you had a major drug operation being run right under their noses and not a single criminal involved faced justice? They all either got murdered by other criminals or were gone with the wind. The whole thing makes the entire agency look completely incompetent. They should be chomping at the bit to nail someone down - even if its a lackey at this point. Find someone to put the blame on so they can at least save some face, right?

Its not like the investigation was at a dead end at this point. If blue meth was back in circulation, they could've started looking for who the new distributor might've been. Not to mention, Hank had his suspicions about Lydia, but never really followed it up. And then there was Jesse - arguably out of the game, but he still should've been a person of interest for Hank.

So all these months, did Hank truly give up on the investigation? Did he accept defeat and let "Heisenberg" win?

... In Ozymandias? How long would he have gotten away with it?

The reason Hank needed to lead him to the money was because what he had wasn't enough. He only had his theory where Walt fit into all of that and the Jesse's testimony.Might've been enough to start an investigation, but not enough for an arrest, much less a conviction. Which was why he needed some hard physcial proof - like Walt's confession or the money. Apart from Hank, only Skyler and Marie knew, and they didn't know the details.

So how long do you think Walt could've made it had he decided to try and get away with it?

Let's say when the Nazis roll up, Walt figures that Hank can't be saved. So instead of offering them 80 million to spare him, he keeps his mouth shut and thanks them for saving him when they shoot him dead. Then also points them to Jesse and tells them he was cooperating with the DEA.

If he never tells them that he has money buried out there, Jack wouldn't suspect that that's what the coordinates referred to - so he'd leave him with his 80 million. Walt could simply hitch a ride with them and come back to move the money later.

The Nazis could still torture Jesse for what he told Hank and raid his house for all the evidence - including Jesse's confession tape.

And as Saul pointed out, Skyler never actually saw anything. The only real evidence she had was money, which was hidden. She can't tell the cops anything about Walt's cooking process or distribution or associates. And the same goes for Marie.

So let's say that Walt promises Jack and his gang to come back and cook once the heat dies down. And then he goes back home pretending to be innocent of everything.

"But Hank arrested you." "No, he didn't."

"He was investigating you for being Heisenberg." "I have no idea what you're talking about."

"What about the money?" "The one I made from gambling? We invested it in the car wash."

"So where are Hank and Gomez and Jesse?" "How should I know?"

His family might know the truth, but there is nothing concrete to arrest him for or any physical evidence tying him to Hank and Gomez's disappearance. Accessing the money might be an issue for a while if they keep him under surveillance, but pretty sure Saul can help him with that.

There is Huell, of course, but once he finds out that Hank lied to him, he might shut his trap and call Saul too. The disappearance of 2 DEA agents might be a big deal, but in the end, they don't actually have anything because Hank kept the whole thing off the books.

So how long could Walt get away with it? What do you imagine might be the thing that finally nails him?

That song that was at the start of the eponymous episode - how "real" was it?

At first, I thought it was a fun, stylized way to let the audience know what was happening in the drug world without new characters, scenes or detailed dialogue. A recap to cover things happening offscreen and setting up what might happen. Here's what I took from the song:

- Walt's product has become famous with people wanting to try it from far and wide, even in Mexico.

- "Heisenberg" pretty much controls the drug market in ABQ.

- Cartel is losing profits because of his meth and they feel disrespected.

- Cartel is on the hunt for "Heisenberg" and they'll kill if if they find him.

Except, none of that matches the reality of what's happening. Sure, Blue Sky's sales are increasing but:

- Heisenberg's organization consists of 5 people - Walt is the cook, Jesse the distributor and 3 guys slinging in the streets.

- While the purity is impressive, both Mike and Gus consider Walt to be too small potatoes to be a concern to them.

- No one from the cartel seems to have heard of Blue Sky, let alone being on the hunt for Heisenberg.

- Neither the DEA in ABQ or Texas were concerned about this drug. In fact, the only one who seemed to care about it was Hank.

This tells a much different story. Basically, Walt's operation was small and local. It wasn't a real competition for any of the big boys in the game. But if that's the case, what was the point of the song? Red herring? Some kind of foreshadowing?