MovieChat Forums > Breaking Bad (2008) Discussion > The outrage over "poisoning a child" is ...

The outrage over "poisoning a child" is ridiculous

posted 10 years ago by DomIsAMoron
96 replies | jump to latest

Coming off a season in which Walt had Jesse murder Gale to save their lives - a sweet, innocent guy who wouldn't hurt a fly (he cooks meth but he believes in personal freedoms to choose and I guarantee if the character were real, he would own anyone who tried to take him on in that argument) - the "shockingly horrible" thing he does is...make a kid temporarily sick with some berries in order to prevent Gus from murdering his freak'n family.

People say "poison a child" and leave out the context to make it sound like something completely different...as though he murdered a child.

The way people talk about it, Walt may as well have just used the damn ricin and killed him. Would've saved him a whole lot of trouble with the lie to Jesse. Instead, he deliberately used the berries to make sure the kid survived.

And this was to save his freak'n family's lives. I mean, I'd shoot a kid dead to save my family's lives. I don't give a damn about *someone else* in that situation. That person can blow me.

But no, Walt isn't even allowed to make Brock sick for a few days to keep Gus from murdering his kids. Because poor Brock, the CHILD. He's turned into Heisenbergggggg....eeeeeevillll.

This is the fault of Gilligan, though. Horrid writing, underscored by the fact that they never showed how Walt got the berries from his yard into Brock's stomach. That would have been the most interesting part of the episode, but they skipped it because they either couldn't figure out a good way to explain it, or they stupidly thought the "shock" of seeing it was Walt at the end (not a shock to anyone who isn't extremely gullible/unaware of television tropes) was more important.

[–] freedomfan01-736-641705 9 years ago

"I mean, I'd shoot a kid dead to save my family's lives."

Hahahaha...message boards

[–] Shadowkisss 9 years ago

Of course our moral compasses take a dive when we comments on shows like this, or The Sopranos, and others, because we are discussing what we, or the characters, should or might do in situations I assume most of us would never put ourselves in to begin with. Its more like a fantasy than actual reactions to real events, like when you are mad at someone and you think "I will kill him/her" but you would never actually commit murder. For example in one of The Sopranos episodes when Christian shoots a guy in the foot, I think many of us were somewhat rooting for Chris and thought the other guy deserved it because we have been around some rude people, for example at the grocery store, and we know how that feels, eventho most of us would never do what Christian did.

[–] Icecutter 9 years ago

"I mean, I'd shoot a kid dead to save my family's lives."

Hahahaha...this message board

FTFY

[–] RKOunionII 9 years ago

Bump.

[–] millsyooksy 9 years ago

I totally agree. Jesse gets so up and arms about it even though Brock lived, and the only reason Walt did it was to save his fam. Ridiculous.

[–] talbot12 9 years ago

Finally I was looking for thread like this. Walt is trully real anti-hero not some damn villain. He did really do all this for his family, even though power depraved him. Walt ran into vicious circle and to get out he had to bad things in order to protect him and his familty, even Jessie (who's also close person to him despite all their disagreements). So you're right because this action, Walt is considered greatest villain. *beep* great thanks Vince Gilligan.

[–] Whatlarks 9 years ago

Poisoning an innocent child was part of a stream of depravities caused in major part by warped pride, not merely a desire to protect his family. People forget context, but the poisoning came late among a history of outrages. It shouldn't be seen in isolation. Poisoning an innocent child was an immoral decision, but not out of character given Walt's history.

Gilligan:

"I think it's because there's no bigger reveal than the fact that Walt would poison a child (albeit to save his own life and the lives of his family). That's the moment that truly makes him no better than Gus. Simply put, it seemed wise to me to save Walt's deepest, darkest secret until the very end."

There were other options. Walt formed this relatively inventive plan, thus he had the capacity to imagine another. He happened to hit upon this particular option and settled on it.

Finding it outrageous is a healthy instinct.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Snowman_Mcknives 9 years ago

You really didn't get the TV show did you? "The Greater Good" was maintaining control of a violent meth empire. He wasn't curing cancer.

"They are just a flock of to fish for fame its person"

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Snowman_Mcknives 9 years ago

Which was entirely because he wanted control of a violent meth empire.

"They are just a flock of to fish for fame its person"

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Snowman_Mcknives 9 years ago

at that point he didn't even have a meth empire

Because he'd lost it due to being an egotistical *beep*

As it stood, the ONLY reason he poisoned Brock was to get Jesse back on his side to help him kill Gus

Who only had a beef with him because he was an egotistical *beep*

who had just threatened Hank and his family

Because of him being an egotistical *beep*
So, yes, it's entirely justified because he was trying to protect people he loved but was lying to from problems that he himself had created.
Created by being an egotistical *beep*

"They are just a flock of to fish for fame its person"

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Snowman_Mcknives 9 years ago

Your original comment stated that he poisoned Brock to protect a meth empire

I stand corrected. It wasn't to get control of the violent meth empire back, but to gain control of the violent meth empire for the first time. This is a key moral difference.

He poisoned Brock to protect his family.

This is his excuse for everything in the series. In the end of the series, he admits it was a lie. That was the point of the scene where he admits it was a lie. It's supposed to make you re-assess every time he used that as an excuse.
Even if that was the case, it's protecting them from problems that are entirely his fault.

"They are just a flock of to fish for fame its person"

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Snowman_Mcknives 9 years ago

he somehow saw himself taking over Gus' meth Empire?

Yes. Since he ends up founding a far more violent meth empire in the aftermath. At best, he was eliminating competition.

And it doesn't matter if the problems were created by him. The bottom line is that he only poisoned Brock to protect his family.

From him. From problems that were entirely his fault, due to his own ego. It's morally ambiguous at best.
To pretend you can't understand why anyone would see it another way suggests some interesting things about your morality.
It's okay to poison a child as long as you're doing it to get your meth producing partner back on your side to kill the guy you were happy to make meth for until he didn't respect your meth-making abilities enough. As long as you were only pretending to poison a child. Because there's no way that could go wrong.
Say that out loud to yourself.

"They are just a flock of to fish for fame its person"

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Snowman_Mcknives 9 years ago

Walt never even wanted an empire.

I know. In the first season, he breaks down exactly how much he needs to make. He then goes on to make far more than that and be responsible for the death of several dozen people, both directly and indirectly, as well as the continued suffering of the many users of his very dangerous drug.
Almost like the show was making a point about intentions, among other things.
I'll leave you to your opinion. It's just a pity that you're so interested in a show with a ton of subtext an ambiguity that you've elected to watch with almost no capacity for reflection.

"They are just a flock of to fish for fame its person"

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Whatlarks 9 years ago

The obvious option had been there for some time.

You're honestly asking but you're never inclined to honestly reflect on answers you don't like. So there is no value to either of us in my spelling out the obvious.

I will repeat, however, that Walt hatched this relatively inventive plan and therefore he had the capacity to imagine another like it. It was his m.o. to innovate under pressure. He just happened to hit upon this particular option and settled on it. He didn't have to.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Whatlarks 9 years ago

As anticipated, zero reflection on your part. To make the case all I had to do was point out one of the most memorable, extraordinary aspects of the character, namely his ability to innovate under pressure. On a meta level the writers were certainly capable of inventing options for such a character. They chose to have him settle on this one not just because it had a chance of working, but because they wanted to show that moral reflection was absent or severely diminished in the character.

Naturally you've missed that entirely, and have embraced his mindset without the slightest reservation. Breaking Bad wasn't really made for that kind of mentality, that kind of superficial response.

Regardless, none of that refers to the most sensible and obvious solution of all, that had been available for some time. The elephant isn't just in the room, it's standing on your foot.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Whatlarks 9 years ago

Nothing I've said has relied on any form of jargon. "Psuedo-intellectual" doesn't mean anything other than that you didn't understand what was said in plain English.

However, I have intentionally been cryptic about the most sensible and obvious solution, which had been available for some time. I said why I choose to not spell it out for you. Those who have watched Breaking Bad with more capacity than you've brought to it will know that solution in an instant.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] YellowManReanimated 9 years ago

I think she's saying he should've gone to the cops.

Against the faint background of reality, imagination spins out and weaves new patterns

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Snowman_Mcknives 9 years ago

Here's a solution: don't personally create the problem in the first place.

"They are just a flock of to fish for fame its person"

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]