Walter said:
It's funny how this topic has snowballed, because when we started, I hadn't actually given a lot of thought to why I feel the way I do. I think the key for me is though, like you've already stated: It's volatile territory, and I've already moved on.
Neither had I, besides popping into this thread every once in a while. This has forced me to learn and think more about it, and I'm certainly more positive than I was at the outset.
Walter said:
I realized that hypocritically, if after Berserk, Miura returned to do a side-story on some Berserk character, I'd probably be ecstatic.
Well, after reading this post I'm not so sure. =)
Walter said:
But ... now that you've opened Pandora's Box, I'm coming up with all sorts of outlandish ways in my head that this spin-off could go south quick
(Mike walks on set, applause from audience, ala Kramer: "I love that crazy, old guy!"). So now, I'm actually more negative about the idea than when we started talking about it. Look what you've done.
That's pretty negative on the subject to begin with though; you're imagining comically exaggerated bad scenarios when you admittedly know the people behind this are better than that and have already indicated it's going to be a single camera setup, like BB.
Walter said:

In some weird way, yeah I am a little happier that he is moving on to different projects, and not clinging tightly to his big success. That's healthy for a creator, even if Battle Creek's premise sounds a little dry. What's unhealthy is to keep going down the same road after you already said it was over.
What about when one's hand is forced? Maybe this is what happens when you have to compromise ending your show on your own terms right when its a huge success. It's not like they're really even "going back," they barely left beyond a season break.
Walter said:
If it truly falls on its face, I do think it could affect how we remember Breaking Bad, years down the road. My ambivalence over the show's ending has already somewhat affected my feeling of its legacy.
We just can't like anything without an asterisk anymore (you already mentioned Mass Effect =). I fear for Berserk's ending, because I could see it being very much like Bad's (not parallel in what happens, but in the way Miura constructs it). Anyway, it's not like they're going to ruin the show's perfect ending for you, so all the more reason not to hate Better Call Saul just for existing.
Walter said:
But honestly, Gilligan employs talented people. It probably won't completely suck. Again, I'm mostly objecting on principle here: See next line ↓
Even if those elements are rock solid, the premise will carry the lingering scent of "cash-in."
It is a cash in from AMC's perspective, but Gilligan and company were talking about doing it when the idea of "cashing in" on Breaking Bad was laughable. So, you could argue it's only coming to fruition because of the cash in factor, but that wasn't its genesis as a creative endeavor and shouldn't reflect on that aspect of the show.
Walter said:
I like Mike a lot. I think his character is among the greatest things in Breaking Bad's hefty bag of tricks. But bringing him back feels lazy. That character already had a good story arc. I'd rather not poke around in grandpa's attic, lest what I find gross me out. Does it make sense? Sure it does. But he isn't a prerequisite to a show about Saul.
So, it's not a prerequisite, but it only makes sense because Mike worked for him, but it's lazy because Mike is a great character, which is why they should leave him out of the show for it to be good? Let's just disagree to agree on this one.
Walter said:
I'm not convinced of [not retconning] yet. Spin-offs inherently have this potential, particularly when they're involving key cast members from the original. At some point in the writing room, with all these similar folks, I can easily envision a scenario where they'd have to retcon something so as to not step on Breaking Bad's toes.
I actually think some kind of retcon or tweak is necessary for Saul's character to be a protagonist (Gilligan has said as much in interviews, he'll need some kind of conflict). Now
that could go seriously wrong even with the best intentions.
Walter said:
That sounds imminently watchable to me. But I'm not sure how much meat will be on that bone after a season or two.
Damn, if you're already thinking beyond season 2 you might actually be more positive on the show than I am. My guess is it doesn't get past season 1 and everyone shrugs and says, "Whoops." I'm just hoping it isn't DOA because people can't get past the Breaking Bad comparisons it's bound to be on the short end of (episode 1 finishes, "THIS ISN'T AS GOOD AS BREAKING BAD!"). If they can get to season 2 and establish the show's cast and continuity so we're invested in it then it will have real potential. Season's 3 and 4 of Breaking Bad were basically just them riffing on that without a plan, so if they can get to that point with Saul it could be great. It's also why I'm looking forward to seeing these guys in action again: the introduction of Mike, seasons 3 and 4 = them bullshitting. So, bullshit away, Bad team!
Walter said:
Pretty sure that's what I said in my last post.
Well, you're also claiming that you're being hypocritical and somewhat unreasonable, taking the extreme negative view of everything. I'm not used to this from you, that's usually more my style. =)