Breaking Bad won 16 Emmy Awards out of 58 nominations.

Better Call Saul? 53 nominations. Zero wins.
Let that sink in for a moment.

Both shows were created by Vince Gilligan and feature incredible writing, complex characters, and some of the best performances in television.

Yet, despite six seasons of critical acclaim, Better Call Saul never won a single Primetime Emmy. Not even Bob Odenkirk or Rhea Seehorn managed to take home an award for their performances.

Personally, I think Better Call Saul deserves to be considered on the same level as Breaking Bad. In some ways, its character development, subtle storytelling, and psychological depth are arguably even better. Jimmy McGill’s transformation is just as fascinating as Walter White’s, if not more so.

Of course, Breaking Bad is more intense, accessible, and gripping. But does that automatically make it the better show?

Was Better Call Saul simply unlucky to compete against shows like Game of Thrones, Succession, and The Handmaid’s Tale? Did being a prequel prevent it from receiving the recognition it deserved? Or is Breaking Bad genuinely the superior series?

Here’s the real question: if Better Call Saul had aired first, without Breaking Bad casting such a long shadow over it, would we consider it the better show today?

I’m curious to hear what everyone thinks. Which series do you prefer? And does the fact that Better Call Saul never won a single Emmy change your perception of the show in any way?

I have a theory on the watcher, I believe that the Watcher is nobody and everyone at the same time. I believe most previous residents (still alive) and the Westfield Preservation Society all have a part to play in the Watcher. At one point in time, I do think the watcher was one singular person, but I feel like it’s been a long time since that, I feel that the last time the watcher was just one person was when John Graff lived there. The obsession of finding out who the Watcher is essentially turns them into the Watcher, everyone is striving to figure out who it is and I think that they believe by mimicking the Watcher it provides some sort of answer to who it is, it fills in that void of unknowingness. We can see this with Dean, he essentially turns himself into the Watcher by the end of the show through his obsession of finding out who it is, he even wrote his own Watcher letters. We can also see this with Theodora, yes she made up the story to give Dean clarity, but at the same time I think she did it to fill in the unknowingness of who’s behind the Watcher essentially closing the case by making herself be the Watcher. It’s an endless cycle of finger-pointing. There are different groups behind the watcher not knowing the other is also playing a part in it. There’s something about the house that draws people in, It’s not something paranormal but it’s like how people become obsessed with true crime, people strive for an answer to figure out who the mastermind is behind everything even though there isn’t one.

I just watched the recent Matthew Perry documentary series, and honestly, one thing that struck me was how little I’ve seen the Friends cast publicly say or share a few words about him in the aftermath of his death.

The irony is just heartbreaking. The theme song of Friends is literally “I'll Be There for You,” but when you look at Matthew’s struggles, it makes you wonder whether anyone was really there for him when he needed them the most.

Here was a man who made millions of people laugh, who became part of so many people's lives through his portrayal of Chandler Bing, and yet, behind all that humour, he was fighting his own demons.

What really got me was towards the end of the series, when his sister, Mia Perry, talks about seeing the Friends cast at his funeral, people she apparently hadn't seen in the past 20 years.

I don't know what went on behind closed doors, and I don't want to pretend I know the dynamics of their relationships. People grieve differently, and not everything needs to be made public. But hearing that, after watching the documentary, really makes you think about how different the relationships we see on screen can be from the ones that exist in real life.

We watched these six people portray a group of friends who showed up for one another through breakups, career failures, heartbreaks, and life's messiest moments. We grew up believing in that kind of friendship, at least a little.

And then reality hits.

Sometimes, the people who make the world laugh are fighting battles that the world never fully sees. And sometimes, the friendships we think are forever might not be what we imagine them to be.

I just wish Matthew had found more peace, more support, and more reasons to stay. He deserved that much.

Maybe I'm reading too much into a documentary, but the contrast between I'll Be There for You and the reality of Matthew Perry's life is genuinely heartbreaking.

just finished watching it n holy shit the only way the plot goes along is by character actually being brain dead. why tf would she astral project into a burnin building when while astral projected she could do nothing? only way rob plans worked is by everyone else being db asf

No hate to her at all - I thought Miku was fantastic in Bet which is what lead me to watch Crew Girl, but I just can’t put a finger on why in Crew Girl it kind of just sucks, like her acting. It feels so shallow and awkward compared to Bet, like you can tell she’s acting, but in Bet, I felt like she became her character more. I also feel like they’re pretty similar storylines with how she’s a new girl at a preppy school which is why the difference is confusing me. Maybe it’s the different environments? Thoughts anyone?

The series ends by suggesting that when the guards are gone, people govern themselves through solidarity. Read the men's own explanations and something smaller and more human appears: they were tired, they had nothing left to win, and they did not want to be seen to quit. They found a way to leave that let every one of them keep face.

Worth knowing about people. Just not the thing the show says it found.

Written for The Psychologist.read my article here

I personally don't get the hate of this show and felt it was extremely creative. Once I did some fact checking the first episode and realized a lot of it was being dramatized, and got past my initial disappointment, I was able to let myself enjoy it.

The acting is phenomenal and Sarah Paulson deserves an Oscar for her character Aileen.. she played her better than Charlize did. I think that the acting of all the main characters really deserves some recognition. It was very gruesome and the Aileen story was unexpected but I felt it was very well done!

While you were questioning authority, I was on my couch.

Our paths have never crossed, but I feel like we could have something.

If you're single and happen to see this, I too enjoy history, psychological experiments, and a healthy disregard for authority.

A girl in Michigan

PS - im so deadass. forreal if someone knows him, id slide into his dms but i dont have an instagram. like im serious, ive got a bookshelf 1/2 ww2/Germany, other 1/2 american history/presidents. my goodreads list is basically science fiction or some kind of examination of a system of power. but im also super cute and really into normal stuff like football

​

Just finished watching Lupin Season 1, and honestly, I wasn't expecting to get this invested in Assane Diop's story.

What makes this show so entertaining isn't just the clever disguises, elaborate plans, or the way Assane always seems to be three steps ahead of everyone else. It's the fact that every move he makes has a purpose, and every little detail can become part of a much bigger plan.

Assane doesn't play by the same rules as everyone else. While the police are busy looking for answers, he's already thinking about the next move. He understands human psychology, knows how to exploit people's assumptions, and uses their overconfidence against them. Sometimes, the most powerful weapon isn't money, authority, or physical strength. It's simply understanding how people think.

But what makes his character more interesting is that his story isn't just about pulling off the perfect heist. Everything goes back to his father, Babakar Diop, and the injustice that destroyed his family. Beneath all the confidence, humor, and masterful planning, there's a son who refuses to let his father's name remain stained by a crime he never committed.

That's what gives the show its emotional weight. Assane isn't simply trying to steal valuable things; he's trying to reclaim a truth that was taken away from him.

And the way the series uses the legacy of Arsène Lupin is brilliant. Assane doesn't just admire the gentleman thief — he seems to have turned Lupin's philosophy into his own identity. Every situation becomes a game of observation, patience, and misdirection.

My biggest takeaway from Season 1: The best trick isn't making people believe a lie. It's making them so confident in what they believe that they never question the truth standing right in front of them.

The show constantly makes you reconsider what you've seen, and that's what makes Assane such a compelling protagonist.

Now I'm curious about everyone else's take:

Was Assane genuinely a genius, or did his plans sometimes depend too much on luck?

Which moment in Season 1 impressed you the most?

Do you think his quest for justice justifies the risks he takes, especially when his family could get caught in the consequences?

And most importantly, is Assane Diop one of the smartest protagonists in modern television, or does the show make him a little too untouchable?

I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts. 🔥

Keanu Reeves is joining the cast of another action thriller that looks set to be truly thrilling. The *John Wick* star is set to appear in the Netflix film *Maelstrom*.

Jaume Collet-Serra, the director behind the thriller *Carry On*, will be behind the camera. The plot of the new film will combine action cinema with a story of survival in extreme conditions, in which a violent storm cuts the characters off from help.

In *Maelstrom*, Keanu Reeves is set to play a federal marshal tasked with protecting the fiancée of an arms dealer. The man has agreed to testify, making the woman a target for people connected to his criminal activities. The situation becomes more complicated when a powerful hurricane cuts off communications and prevents them from calling for help.

The protagonists are cut off from the world, and their shelter becomes a target for armed assailants. The sheriff must protect the witness and survive the night, during which their enemies have no intention of letting them escape. This setting gives the filmmakers the opportunity to build tension around the struggle for survival, confined spaces, and threats looming from multiple directions.

Previously, Alan Ritchson, known for his role in the series *Reacher*, among others, was set to play the lead role in the project. However, the actor left the production, and the reasons for his decision have not been disclosed. Netflix has not commented on the casting change.

Source: POPKulturowy Kociołek

Netflix bug?

Is it just me? Opened up my app on the phone today to find my continue watching row gone. Netflix knows the show I was watching (Seal team) because I've got the suggestion row that says because you watched seal team, but when I search for the show it can't be found.

It's not just this show, the entire row is gone. Also the top10 in my country row is gone.

Super frustrating.

If you’ve been watching and feeling a total disconnect between who Joanne actually is and how the narrative forces us to view her, I just want to say that you aren't imagining things.

The show repeatedly asks us to view Joanne as a flawed, charming, slightly immature heroine who is fundamentally "the best person in the world" (as Noah claims). In reality, her behavior on screen comes across as deeply self-absorbed, toxic,and overall unlikeable. The issue isn't just that she's flawed, it's that the narrative completely lacks the self-awareness to realize just how unlikeable she is.

This disconnect makes a lot more sense when you look at the show's origins. Created by Erin Foster (David Foster’s daughter), the series is heavily based on her life and experiences. When creators write a show about themselves without strong outside pushback, their own real-world blind spots become the character’s blind spots.

If you want to see more of what I mean, you should check out Erin and Sara (the “Morgan” sister) Foster’s social media. I had a quick look today and watched an interview in which they explained their high-level Hollywood access and generational privilege not as an unearned advantage or a safety net, but as an opportunity that simply makes a person "more savvy” than everyone else. That mindset directly bleeds into the show's writing, which often involves outlandish elite LA privilege framed as “relatable.”

If you see Joanne as a bit flawed but also funny, authentic, refreshing, and someone who generally means well, you're watching the show the way it is intended, and that’s OK! I’m not knocking anyone who enjoys a show the way it is intended to be enjoyed. BUT, if you are have been feeling like something is deeply off with her character, as in “omg this person is psychotic and toxic AF,” you are not crazy! You are seeing through the cracks to the core flaw of the show…A story that is fundamentally incapable of seeing its own protagonist clearly or holding her accountable.

This take won't be for everyone, but for anyone who felt like they were being gaslit by the show's framing of Joanne, the disconnect you're seeing in the character writing is very real. Don’t gaslight yourself!

Ps - no shade to Kristen Bell! IMO if Joanne has any charm, it’s thanks to her.

Hi everyone,
I’m looking for help with a Netflix external display issue that started after updating my iPad Air 5th generation to iPadOS 27.0.1. (Yesterday) I’ve since updated to iPadOS 27.2 (today) but the problem still persists.

Before updating to iPadOS 27.0.1, everything worked exactly as I wanted, when I connected my iPad to my TV and started streaming a movie or TV show on Netflix, the app automatically detected the TV connection and displayed a message along the lines of “This content is playing on your TV.”
The video then played independently on the TV, filling the screen, while my iPad displayed the movie poster or title information. The iPad wasn’t simply mirroring the video.
Since the iPadOS 27.0.1 update, Netflix no longer seems to detect or handle the external display in the same way. Instead, my iPad screen is mirrored to the TV, and the Netflix video appears smaller than the TV screen, with black borders on all four sides.I’ve tried pinch-to-zoom, which enlarges the picture, but it doesn’t restore the previous behaviour or properly solve the issue. I don’t want to zoom or crop the video manually, and I don’t want to stay on the mirrored screen. I want Netflix to play the video independently on the TV, just as it did before.
Using the exact same iPad, USB-C hub, HDMI cable and Hisense TV, another streaming service behaves exactly as I want Netflix to behave : the video plays full-screen on the TV, my iPad displays the movie poster or information instead of mirroring the video and the TV displays the video independently of the iPad’s screen.
I’ve already tried to :
- Update from iPadOS 27.0.1 to iPadOS 27.2.
- Confirm that Netflix is up to date
- Restart the iPad.
- Disconnect and reconnect the USB-C hub and HDMI cable.
- Check the “Match Display” setting, which is currently disabled.

Has anyone else experienced Netflix losing independent external display playback after an iPadOS update? I already experienced this behavior with an old TV that i replaced since, but the issue was fixed when Netflix jumped automatically from an episode to the next (like the episode 1 was mirrored from my iPad and then when it automatically started episode 2 was correctly displayed.
Does the current Netflix iPad app still support displaying video full-screen on an external TV while showing separate content on the iPad?
Is there a setting or workaround that can restore this behaviour?
Could this be a Netflix-specific issue introduced by an iPadOS update, especially since Canal+ still works perfectly with the same setup?
If that helps on the matter, I’m on a family subscription but I’m in another place so my IP address isn’t the same (which is why I cannot just log in onto the Netflix app directly on my tv)

Thanks for your help really !!

Anyone else never have issues traveling?

I don't know if I'm just lucky or the horror stories that people write are unlucky...

I've been traveling to Tijuana, Mexico almost monthly for the last 2.5 years. This year I stayed there for two months and no problems at all.

Typically in Tijuana, I will sign into one of the TVs at the AirBnB I'm staying at.

I occasionally travel to other places not TJ and don't have problems with mobile or tablet but don't recall if I sign into TVs also.

I'm sure this is covered somewhere in their terms and conditions. Tried to find a solution but got turned off when the Live Agent basically concluded that Netflix expects / implies I need to pay for 4 separate accounts just to watch their shows.

I guess Netflix just wants me to catch up on my reading. Charging up the Kindle as we speak.

Yeah, Title sums it up. I'm watching "The mentalist" and Agent Lisbon says something about there being tranqualizers in some guys system. Found it kinda interesting, so there ya go.

Season 1 episode 9, about 15,5 minutes in.

I never really cared about historical accuracy. I think the acting is great, and I love how every season has its own art direction, atmosphere, and themes that reflect the decade the story takes place in. Ask yourself, if this series wasn’t based on real people, would you enjoy it more?

Another complaint is that the show tries to justify their actions. I disagree. The show clearly portrays them as monsters. Humanizing someone doesn’t mean defending them. If you carefully watch and analyze the show, you’ll notice that while each of them experienced abuse or neglect to varying degrees, the show makes it pretty clear that, in these particular cases, nature was always going to win over nurture. They were going to become who they became regardless of their upbringing. That’s why they’re called monsters.

In their help article on the matter, Netflix say "On Android mobile devices, iPhone, and iPad, if you lock or put the screen to sleep (for example, by pressing the side button) while a title is playing, the Netflix app will continue to play the title's audio in the background.

Note: Background audio playback is not available on an ad-supported experience." https://help.netflix.com/en/node/721802972549732

So it seems they think this new 'improvement' in user experience (UX) is something people should want to pay for. But it just makes me want to downgrade to the ad supported tier because I want playback to stop when I'm not in the app and that's not possible in the ad-less packages.

Does anyone else think playback continuing after leaving the netflix app is not a boon for the ad-less experience if there's no option to toggle this setting on or off?

It's an even more idiotic UX design decision when you consider that android users could already enable picture-in-picture mode if they wanted playback to continue in some form or another when leaving the netflix app. They should do away with this UX change altogether, but failing that at least provide an option for those paying for a higher tier of netflix service to choose whether Netflix continues playing in the background after exiting the app. Otherwise users with the same preferences as me are technically worse-off than ad-supported viewers with this change in UX design.

If anyone's figured out a fix for this, let me know! I've tried creating a Samsung GoodLock Rountines+ muting/pausing routine that's triggered when I leave the Netflix app, but couldn't achieve the desired effect.