It Started As Just Another IRS Scam, But Then Something Wonderful Happened!

It’s bad enough that we have to pay taxes, but who has time to suffer through a phone call with a tax scammer?

One man knew exactly what to do when a tax scammer called him to say he still owed the IRS over $3,000. He went on to tell him that his property was going to be seized, including his home and other additional penalties, if the man did not pay this debt immediately over the phone with his credit card.

Now, most of us probably wouldn’t be able to sit on the other end of the phone and play it cool like this guy did. But hats off to him for pulling it off. He knew the IRS doesn’t ever call people like this and ask for payments over the phone. So maybe he just wanted to see what kind of crazy things they would tell him so he could catch them in a lie.

Charlie, the man who posted this video is a born-again Christian. He says that he’s not known for his eloquent speaking, but that sometimes God just takes over a situation.

When the man on the other end of the phone, who calls himself "Kevin Smith", asks for Charlie’s credit card information, Charlie suggests that he might try and contact his father who handles all of his legal matters.

"I think it’s possible that there’s a mistake in the name. I think it’s possible that you’re looking for my Father."

Kevin thinks that he’s just not being clear enough and reiterates the proposition to Charlie, to which Charlie replies by saying that Kevin is actually looking for his Father who goes by the name, "El Shaddai."

Although it’s clear that being comical isn’t Charlie’s intent, you can’t help but laugh a little when Kevin thinks Charlie’s just trying to put off his responsibility to pay taxes onto someone else.

"Are you familiar with ‘El Shaddai?'" He begins to switch gears on Kevin, "My Father has already paid all of my debts for me, and you can find that under ‘El Shaddai.'"

Kevin is beginning to get frustrated and states that he needs to talk to him and not his ‘Father.’ But Charlie reassures him,

"You will talk to my Father at some point."

It ends up being a beautiful exchange. Charlie lets Kevin know that he’s on to his scam, but that he can change his ways. He tells him about the love of the Father, and the saving power of Jesus. He actually gets Kevin to pray the "Sinner’s Prayer."

It goes to show that just because you don’t like who’s calling you, it doesn’t mean that they have to ultimately dictate how the conversation goes. It’s awesome how the Lord can take over a situation if we surrender it to Him.

the target of the scam converted the scammer to Christianity


They Wanted A Girl, So They Tried A 4th Time. But Then Mom's Belly Got Much Bigger Than They Expected

She already had three sons, and all she wanted was a little girl. But she got much more than she bargained for...

At first, everything seemed to go as planned. Chloe got pregnant, and everything appeared to be healthy.

But her belly size soon got out of control. It was clear to the couple that this was no normal pregnancy. Perhaps they were about to get a little more than they expected to.

Chloe and her husband went for an ultrasound, expecting multiples.

And they were right! Chloe was expecting triplets. However, it wasn’t that simple.

Chloe was expecting two boys and one girl. But the girl was having her oxygen supply cut off by the two boys.

So she was given a choice. Let her daughter die in order to let the two boys grow stronger, or induce an early birth to save the daughter, risking death for all three of them.

Chloe made the tough decision to try for her unborn daughter. She was hesitant, but she said, "I knew she was strong because she was still alive at 28 weeks." The babies were delivered a few days following the 28-week mark.

All three had to spend several days In the hospital, and received blood transfusions. Luckily, all babies appear to be growing strong and healthy. All three are at home now, and have met their three brothers.

And they’re such an adorable, picturesque family of eight! These six siblings are going to have a crazy, wonderful life.

Chloe and Rohan Dunstan were a sweet family of five when they decided to try for their fourth child. Their sons, aged 1, 2, and 3, are all lovely, but the couple wanted a daughter. So they try again. At first, everything seemed to go as planned. Chloe got pregnant, and everything appeared to be heal


A Tesla Model S drove itself under a parked trailer, but whose fault is that?

No one is questioning the fact that Utah resident Jared Overton’s Tesla Model S drove itself under a parked trailer, according to a report on KSL. What is in question is whether Overton inadvertently activated the car’s "Summon" function, as Tesla says, or if the car malfunctioned and started moving slowly on its own, as Overton claims.

The Tesla Model S’s Summon function is an autopilot mode for finding and parking in spaces and garages. In a response to The Drive’s inquiry and article about this incident, Tesla said the Model S travels at a maximum speed of 1.06 mph while in Summon mode.

Overton said he had driven to a business and parked well behind a trailer that was also parked on the same side of the street. Someone from the business came outside to see the car and that after a while — at least 20 seconds — they both went inside. When Overton came back outside he saw the car had driven underneath the back of the trailer, causing what turned out to be $700 in windshield damage.

After reporting the incident to Tesla, Overton received a letter from a regional service manager that read in part, "Tesla has reviewed the vehicle’s logs, which show that the incident occurred as a result of the driver not being properly attentive to the vehicle’s surroundings while using the Summon feature or maintaining responsibility for safely controlling the vehicle at all times." The letter also said the Summon feature, "was initiated by a double-press of the gear selector stalk button, shifting from Drive to Park and requesting Summon activation." The Tesla response said the Summon feature activated three seconds after Overton got out and closed the door.

Overton has said he and the employee from the business he visited were outside much longer than three seconds and would have noticed if the vehicle was moving. And even had they not, they would have heard the car hit the trailer in the time it took to walk to and enter the business.

After KSL’s initial report on this incident, Tesla got in touch and told them that the Summon feature is in "beta" (development) mode but added, "This feature will park Model S while the driver is outside the vehicle. Please note that the vehicle may not detect certain obstacles, including those that are very narrow (e.g., bikes), lower than the fascia, or hanging from the ceiling. As such, Summon requires that you continually monitor your vehicle’s movement and surroundings while it is in progress and that you remain prepared to stop the vehicle at any time using your key fob or mobile app or by pressing any door handle. You must maintain control and responsibility for your vehicle when using this feature and should only use it on private property."

Tesla is sure that Overton activated the Summon function based on its review of the vehicle’s data (cars have accessible "black boxes" just like planes). Overton believes they’re dismissing his version of what happened, even though he and the workman from the other company agree. He also said his concern is not the money, but that in a similar situation someone might be injured.

An unoccupied Tesla Model S drove itself under a parked trailer. Who’s at fault?

A Utah man's Tesla Model S drove under a parked trailer with the Summon feature. Tesla's records show the man activated Summon; he says the car went rogue.

The owner for not "being aware of surroundings." #StopClickBait


The country with the most plentiful healthy food is...

NEW YORK, Jan 14 - The Netherlands nudged past France and Switzerland as the country with the most nutritious, plentiful and healthy food, while the United States and Japan failed to make it into the top 20, a new ranking released by Oxfam on Tuesday showed.

Chad came in last on the list of 125 nations, behind Ethiopia and Angola, in the food index from the international relief and development organization.

"The Netherlands have created a good market that enables people to get enough to eat. Prices are relatively low and stable and the type of food people are eating is balanced," Deborah Hardoon, a senior researcher at Oxfam who compiled the results, said in an interview.

"They've got the fundamentals right and in a way that is better than most other countries all over the world."

Oxfam ranked the nations on the availability, quality and affordability of food and dietary health. It also looked at the percentage of underweight children, food diversity and access to clean water, as well as negative health outcomes such as obesity and diabetes.

European countries dominated the top of the ranking but Australia squeezed into the top 12, tying with Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Luxembourg at No. 8.

The United Kingdom failed to make the top 10, tying for the 13th spot, because of the volatility of its food prices compared to other goods, which Oxfam said is on a level with Peru (51), Malta (33) and Kyrgyzstan (65).

African nations, along with Laos (112), Bangladesh (102), Pakistan (97) and India (97), were predominant in the bottom 30 countries.

Although the United States has the most affordable and good quality food, high levels of obesity and diabetes pushed the nation into 21st place in the ranking, tying with Japan, which scored poorly on the relative price of food compared to other goods.

The Netherlands got top marks for its low food prices and diabetes levels, while Chad had the worst score for the cost of food in the country and the number of underweight children - 34 percent. The only countries where food is more expensive are Guinea and the Gambia, which were both at the lower end of the ranking.

Burundi (119), Yemen (121), Madagascar (122) and India have the worst rates of nutrition and the most underweight children, according to Oxfam.

Oxfam said the latest figures show 840 million people go hungry every day, despite there being enough food for the hungry. It called for changes in the way food is produced and distributed around the world.

The causes of hunger, it added, include a lack of investment in infrastructure in developing nations and in small-scale agriculture, security, prohibitive trading agreements, biofuel targets that divert crops from food to fuel and the impact of climate change.

Research suggests that climate change could raise the number of people at risk of hunger by 20 to 50 percent by 2050, according to the group.

"This index quite clearly indicates that despite the fact of there being enough food in the world we are still not able to feed everybody in all the countries around the world," said Hardoon.

"If we had a more equal distribution of wealth and resources, and particularly food, this wouldn't be a problem," she added.

Oxfam compiled the data between October and December 2013 using the latest information from the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Foundation, the International Labour Organization and other international organizations.

The index provides a snapshot based on the relative differences in various countries based on the number of factors. But Hardoon said it is not the comprehensive picture of any one nation. (Editing by Eric Kelsey and Cynthia Osterman)

Netherlands Has The Most Plentiful, Healthy Food: Oxfam

By Patricia Reaney                NEW YORK, Jan 14 - The Netherlands nudged past  France and Switzerland as the country with the m...

holland healthy food,netherlands nutritious food,netherlands healthy food,netherlands plentiful healthy food,reuters


'Game of Thrones Season 7 Will Be Delayed For The Worst Reason

I really thought this short week of work was going to be easier than most, but after learning season seven of "Game of Thrones" will be delayed, well, I’m just not so sure anymore.

According to reports, the rest of your summer is now ruined due to the fact "GoT" has to delay the filming of season seven as a result of... wait for it... the WEATHER.

Though the HBO hit has traditionally debuted each new season in April, showrunners David Benioff and Dan Weiss have reportedly revealed we’ll have to wait for a later start date in 2017.

Speaking on the "UFC Unfiltered" podcast, the minds behind the television adaptation of George RR Martin’s novels said,

We don’t have an air date yet, but this year will probably be a little bit later.

We’re starting a bit later because at the end of this season, ‘Winter is here’ — and that means that sunny weather doesn’t really serve our purposes any more. So we kind of pushed everything down the line, so we could get some grim grey weather even in the sunnier places that we shoot.

Ned Stark was right all along, and now Westeros’ winter has ruined our summer. I can’t even.

‘Game of Thrones’ Season 7 Will Be Delayed For The Worst Reason

According to reports, the seventh season of "Game of Thrones" will be delayed because "winter is here" on the show, but it's too warm to shoot on location.

The weather is too sunny to film the cold scenes


Study after study has proven what we already assume is true: Living in Hawaii is wonderful. It already boasts beautiful beaches and America's most livable city (Honolulu), and now, a new report finds it's the healthiest state in the union.

The United Health Foundation released its 25th annual America's Health Rankings, a report compiled by public health experts who analyze each state's healthcare, environment, social, and economic data.

And for the third year in a row, Hawaii has come out on top. But that's no big surprise. Since the rankings began in 1990, Hawaii has always been in the top six, with low smoking, obesity, and childhood poverty rates, and low rates of cancer and cardiovascular deaths.

Want to see how the rest of the country stacks up? Here are the top 10 healthiest states, according to the report:

A new report finds Hawaii is the healthiest state in the union.


The Galaxy Note 7 gets frozen in a block of ice and dropped from 100 feet – guess what happens!

Equipped with Gorilla Glass 5 and IP68-certified for protection against water and dust, the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 is a phone to be reckoned with. However, it was yet to prove itself in the ingeniously cruel hands of YouTubers GismoSlip!To really see what the Note 7 is made out of, they encased the phablet in a bowl of ice, then threw the lump of ice with the Note 7 still in it from as many as 100 feet high! We think you will be surprised by the outcome. Not only did the Note 7 withstand over 23 hours of being fully submerged in ice-cold water (that eventually froze), it also managed to get away from the improvised accident without a single scratch. Yes, the smartphone remained fully functional.Well, too bad the software part doesn't stand quite so firm against the strong hardware part. With Note 7's bricking left and right, we can imagine owners of the new handset getting angry enough as to attempt GismoSlip's antics on their own. This is something we strongly advise against, though. You might end up hurting passerby as you drop all that ice from above. And besides, you can always replace your smartphone! We reckon the Note 7 deserves a second chance.Anyway, watch the hilarious video below and let us know what you think!

To really see what the Note 7 is made out of, GismoSlip encased the phablet in a bowl of ice, then threw the lump of ice with the Note 7 still in it from as many as 100 feet high! We think you will be surprised by the outcome...

The phone survives and is fully functional afterwards


The Better Call Saul Team on the Challenges of Making a Prequel and Why You’ll Never See White Buttons on the Show

The 2016 Emmy race is underway, and Vulture will take a close look at the contenders until the awards on September 18.

Two seasons in and Better Call Saul is already one of the most respected dramas currently on TV. This year, it’s up for seven Emmy Awards, including Outstanding Drama and Outstanding Lead Actor. Earlier this summer, New York ’s Matt Zoller Seitz sat down with Better Call Saul cast members Bob Odenkirk, Rhea Seehorn, and Michael McKean, and co-creator Peter Gould, for a wide-ranging conversation on the morality of each of Saul’s characters, how plot development can be confining in a prequel, and why no men's shirts on the show have white buttons.

Matt Zoller Seitz: You’re coming into this from Breaking Bad , a show that was and is beloved. It ran for five seasons, was a very big deal, and then seemed to have a satisfying ending. And while fans were, I think, delighted, or at least curious, when this prequel was announced, you’d have to really wonder how the hell you were going to do this?

Bob Odenkirk: Peter, how are we going to do it?

Peter Gould: The first thing I had to do was talk Bob into it. And I think that was — Bob had a lot of questions, did you Bob?

BO: I did have questions but you know I think that the concern that I expressed to Peter and [co-creator] Vince [Gilligan], they had already been thinking about, obviously. They’re always a couple steps ahead of everyone else.

But the big concern was, what kind of show would it be? And as it started, the guys were considering every option. And then [there were] concerns about, you know, "Is the character likable enough?" Because in Breaking Bad , [Saul Goodman] was very self-interested and — you know, he was funny, but maybe [would have been] hard to follow for a while if he didn’t grow some depth.

PG: I think that was our great concern when we started thinking about the show, too. Frankly, I thought it was too good to be true.

We started joking about it in the writers room almost as soon as Saul Goodman was introduced. It was a running gag. There’s something that we wanted to do on Breaking Bad and it seemed too silly or — especially if I was pitching it, was probably too silly. And the running joke was, "Well, we’ll do that on 'The Saul Goodman Show.'" And I always thought it was too good to be true. In fact my experience in show business is nothing good ever happens at least until Breaking Bad because nothing good ever happens in show business ever except for Breaking Bad.

PG: Sgt. Bilko and then this. You know, that’s interesting: We actually did talk about Sgt. Bilko .

MM: [ To audience ] Do you have any idea what we’re talking about?

MM: They’re known as Bilkies. Where my Bilkies at? [ To Gould ] You were talking about show business and how nothing good ever happens.

PG: That’s right! Nothing good ever happens, and it seemed too good to be true. So I was trying not to get too emotionally invested in it especially when we were really preoccupied with Breaking Bad . And then when Vince and I started talking about it, we were in this very unusual position for writers because usually you’re going to a studio or network and begging them to even hear your idea. And here we're in the situation where they were pretty interested in this. And so we had to kind of work it out for ourselves first.

The first idea we had, I think I might have mentioned this, was doing a half-hour show. The comparison we always made was to Dr. Katz, Professional Therapist . Do you guys know that? [ To McKean ] Were you ever on that?

RS: That’s how much he works! He’s not sure!

PG: But part of our concern was if we did it as a shorter show, almost as a straight-up comedy — well, I had two concerns. One was, the fun would come from the characters you bring in, and the thing that we came to realize was that there’s no show unless we’re interested in the main characters, unless there’s depth there.

So we spent a lot of time trying to understand the paradox of this character, which was introduced as soon as he was introduced on Breaking Bad , whose real name’s Jimmy McGill. "I just call myself Goodman because the homeboys want a pipe-hitting Jew." How did he get to that? And the great question that we ask ourselves — I think we’re finally on the way to answering it in the writers room — is "What problem does becoming Saul Goodman solve?" And because that question is so weird and it’s so hard to figure out, it’s got enough depth to it for us to continue working on.

And then [there was] the idea that he had evolved more over the course of season one, that he had this wonderful fascinating woman in his life, this beautiful brilliant woman who’s trying to pilot her own course. That just made it much more exciting.

MZS: You answered it. I wonder if Bob could talk about that a little bit: the different challenges posed by this show. There’s obviously a lot more than on Breaking Bad , aren’t there?

BO: Do you mean just the idea of making the show? Because obviously Vince and Peter really, I’d let them —

MZS: Just you filming this lead role, carrying the show, and also playing a character who is not only on screen more, but has many more layers than we were allowed to see.

BO: Oh, that shit was easy! [ Audience laughter ] You know, the only — Look, I mean, as long as they write it I can do it. I don’t think I could have made him care about Chuck if Chuck was just another lawyer and not his brother. Why does he care about this other lawyer? I love him, I don’t know why.

I mean I could talk about the way it’s different but in as far as like, being intimidated by it, I left that to Peter. I did not get intimidated, really, until they put the billboards up for the first season.

You’re laughing, I can hear you laughing! But I mean it. I really literally wept. I mean, I took it seriously, and I asked myself — there were a lot of questions dealing with it. But really I didn’t really let it freak me out until the billboards went up and I thought, Everyone’s going to try this show because they all liked Breaking Bad.

It’s not like you could fly under the radar with this first episode, you know what I mean?

MZS: That’s actually a good segue to talk about Chuck and what I like to call the Chuck Issue. The Chuck Issue.

MZS: Or a soul. He’s — I don’t think he’s ever really been wrong about Jimmy.

MM: No. He’s been correct about Jimmy, and he’s doing the right thing by his lights, absolutely.

No, I, yeah, I think his actions are supportable. Are actually, arguably, correct. That doesn’t make him nice. And you know lawyers don’t go into lawyering for niceness.

MZS: Well no, and in fact if I were to look for an attorney, I think I would much prefer to have Chuck.

MM: Somebody actually asked me that question. If you were in trouble who would you call? Would you call Chuck or would you call Jimmy? No question.

And what’s really interesting is that there’s nothing ruthless about Jimmy. Jimmy’s heart is always getting in the way.

MZS: We actually have a clip here that I would like to show. I think it’s the last clip, the Chuck clip. This is from the season finale, the opening moments of it.

You’re coming into this from, a show that was and is beloved. It ran for five seasons, was a very big deal, and then seemed to have a satisfying ending. And while fans were, I think, delighted, or at least curious, when this prequel was announced, you’d have to really wonder how the hell you were going to do this?Peter, how are we going to do it?The first thing I had to do was talk Bob into it. And I think that was — Bob had a lot of questions, did you Bob?I did have questions but you know I think that the concern that I expressed to Peter and [co-creator] Vince [Gilligan], they had already been thinking about, obviously. They’re always a couple steps ahead of everyone else.But the big concern was, what kind of show would it be? And as it started, the guys were considering every option. And then [there were] concerns about, you know, "Is the character likable enough?" Because in, [Saul Goodman] was very self-interested and — you know, he was funny, but maybe [would have been] hard to follow for a while if he didn’t grow some depth.I think that was our great concern when we started thinking about the show, too. Frankly, I thought it was too good to be true.We started joking about it in the writers room almost as soon as Saul Goodman was introduced. It was a running gag. There’s something that we wanted to do onand it seemed too silly or — especially if I was pitching it, was probably too silly. And the running joke was, "Well, we’ll do that on 'The Saul Goodman Show.'" And I always thought it was too good to be true. In fact my experience in show business is nothing good ever happens at least untilbecause nothing good ever happens in show business ever except forWow!and then this. You know, that’s interesting: We actually did talk about] Do you have any idea what we’re talking about?fan!They’re known as Bilkies. Where my Bilkies at? [] You were talking about show business and how nothing good ever happens.That’s right! Nothing good ever happens, and it seemed too good to be true. So I was trying not to get too emotionally invested in it especially when we were really preoccupied with. And then when Vince and I started talking about it, we were in this very unusual position for writers because usually you’re going to a studio or network and begging them to even hear your idea. And here we're in the situation where they were pretty interested in this. And so we had to kind of work it out for ourselves first.The first idea we had, I think I might have mentioned this, was doing a half-hour show. The comparison we always made was to. Do you guys know that? [] Were you ever on that?No.I’m surprised.] ... No.That’s how much he works! He’s not sure!But part of our concern was if we did it as a shorter show, almost as a straight-up comedy — well, I had two concerns. One was, the fun would come from the characters you bring in, and the thing that we came to realize was that there’s no show unless we’re interested in the main characters, unless there’s depth there.So we spent a lot of time trying to understand the paradox of this character, which was introduced as soon as he was introduced on, whose real name’s Jimmy McGill. "I just call myself Goodman because the homeboys want a pipe-hitting Jew." How did he get to that? And the great question that we ask ourselves — I think we’re finally on the way to answering it in the writers room — is "What problem does becoming Saul Goodman solve?" And because that question is so weird and it’s so hard to figure out, it’s got enough depth to it for us to continue working on.I wasn’t absolutely sure that the show would have emotional depth until we came up with the idea of Jimmy having a brother, an older brother, Chuck. Bob was talking about: "Saul Goodman has nothing he cares about. He really has nothing to lose except his own life and money." And it’s very hard, at least for us, to write a show about someone like that. And what we realized — that Jimmy has this older brother who he really cares about and who really is everything that Jimmy isn’t in so many ways. That started to humanize him for me.And then [there was] the idea that he had evolved more over the course of season one, that he had this wonderful fascinating woman in his life, this beautiful brilliant woman who’s trying to pilot her own course. That just made it much more exciting.I have no idea what the question was.You answered it. I wonder if Bob could talk about that a little bit: the different challenges posed by this show. There’s obviously a lot more than on, aren’t there?Do you mean just the idea of making the show? Because obviously Vince and Peter really, I’d let them —Just you filming this lead role, carrying the show, and also playing a character who is not only on screen more, but has many more layers than we were allowed to see.Oh, that shit was easy!] You know, the only — Look, I mean, as long as they write it I can do it. I don’t think I could have made him care about Chuck if Chuck was just another lawyer and not his brother. Why does he care about this other lawyer? I love him, I don’t know why.It was a wonderful challenge to have, a great gift to be given, after all these years I spent in service of sketch comedy, to get to try to do [this]. But I don’t think it was that different. It was just a couple steps up from the kind of work that you’re always doing as an actor. I mean, that’s how I look at it. I don’t know. It’s almost so different that it is a different thing, but it isn’t entirely. It’s just taking the skills and the talent and the things I’ve been working with and seeing from Bryan Cranston, Aaron Paul, and all the actors I’ve been working with the last couple of years and putting my elbow into it and really working, I think, working hard. I had to put in a lot of time and I still do. I have to really focus to do it and other than that, though, it’s the same job.I mean I could talk about the way it’s different but in as far as like, being intimidated by it, I left that to Peter. I did not get intimidated, really, until they put the billboards up for the first season.You’re laughing, I can hear you laughing! But I mean it. I really literally wept. I mean, I took it seriously, and I asked myself — there were a lot of questions dealing with it. But really I didn’t really let it freak me out until the billboards went up and I thought,Breaking Bad.It’s not like you could fly under the radar with this first episode, you know what I mean?That’s actually a good segue to talk about Chuck and what I like to call the Chuck Issue. The Chuck Issue.I love Chuck. I wrote a whole column in defense of Chuck and I love Chuck as a character, because while he may lack what physicians might call a bedside manner —Or a soul.Or a soul. He’s — I don’t think he’s ever really been wrong about Jimmy.No. He’s been correct about Jimmy, and he’s doing the right thing by his lights, absolutely.No, I, yeah, I think his actions are supportable. Are actually, arguably, correct. That doesn’t make him nice. And you know lawyers don’t go into lawyering for niceness.Well no, and in fact if I were to look for an attorney, I think I would much prefer to have Chuck.Somebody actually asked me that question. If you were in trouble who would you call? Would you call Chuck or would you call Jimmy? No question.And what’s really interesting is that there’s nothing ruthless about Jimmy. Jimmy’s heart is always getting in the way.And it’s not that Chuck doesn’t have a heart. He does have a soul, too. It’s just that he’s also got this growth that he has to have excised, and that’s kind of a prime directive. He’s associating — I’m giving away way too much. Not story-wise, because they don’t tell us anything — but I think that he associates the presence of Jimmy with the absence of his good life. He’s seen some kind of sliding scale, as he was seeing Jimmy more and more every day that he was losing touch with other stuff.We actually have a clip here that I would like to show. I think it’s the last clip, the Chuck clip. This is from the season finale, the opening moments of it.

MZS: That’s one of the many scenes that I would show people to kind of encapsulate the whole range of emotions you get on the show. It’s very — it’s wrenching, it’s wrenching. It’s so difficult to watch. It’s actually, sometimes it’s what I call Cringe TV.

And yet despite this [scene] and despite other biographical details [about why Chuck is who he is], there are a lot of people who resent Chuck for standing in Jimmy’s way. Are you aware of this?

Look, I just, I just closed a show in Los Angeles in Sunday night and I played this, just the worst person. A guy who makes Jimmy look like a saint.

MM: I play this southern colonel in the Civil War. This racist, slave-owning piece of shit. And [in comparison, Chuck] is like a crisp shower and a shave by a professional — which I did the other day too, to get my beard off. And I even found a way to love that guy. I just think you have to find a way to love the person you’re portraying to the degree that that person has regard for himself and that person respects his own opinions and his own rights, and you know, you have to find the center of that person, even if people from the outside see something awful, you have to make it something kind of, for you, doable and real.

I worked with Helen Mirren one time and she played this awful person and she said, "Whenever I have to play someone who’s really detestable, I try and think of what was done to me to make me that way. What was the input that made this output what you get?"

[ To Gould ] And I think that by the end of the second season, you were answering all the questions close to what I was supposing. You were obviously coloring in those spaces a lot more, but I always thought — the mantra I had in the first season was, I made my mother proud, Jimmy made my mother laugh . It’s like, on balance, I couldn’t understand why his [contribution] seemed to have more value than mine. I mean, I got my law degree when I was 22 years old. Jimmy was still the Chicago sun-roof thing. I didn’t get it, I didn’t get it.

But it was playable. It was something that was really playable, to keep in the center of it.

MZS: Bob, how do you feel about the Jimmy/Chuck relationship as an actor in those scenes, and how do you feel about it as a viewer just with a little distance if you watch it?

BO: And I do watch it and feel a different experience from playing it. Part of that is because Peter and Vince make the show even after we shoot it, which is pretty neat to see how they alter things all the way through the editing process. Yeah, I mean look, this is like, I only have to play my side here so I don’t have to think about the thing in total. I think that Jimmy’s a little — he gets carried away with his enthusiasms, and whatever’s happening in the moment, and that helps me a lot to play those scenes with Chuck and to play a simpler character than Chuck is. Chuck is a more complicated mind.

I have a lot of brothers and we don’t have such rivalry, but there’s an intense closeness to your family. Or can be, and [there] certainly is with mine. I think it all rings true.

I mean, these are great scenes. They’re wonderful scenes. They ring true all the way through, and I get to play them opposite Michael McKean, which makes me look like a real actor. You know, that was true in Breaking Bad too — working with Cranston and Aaron and Anna Gunn and all. It’s the people around you who raise your game. So I love playing those scenes. I could keep doing them. And they’re extremely rewarding, too.

MZS: Can we kind of return to an earlier subject, which is the idea of this as a story of the moral evolution of this guy? It’s not just Jimmy that’s going through it. It’s not just Jimmy. Kim is going through it also, I think. And I would imagine that even Chuck deals with, although he’s very resolute, the question of whether or not to cut his brother a break is something he must surely consider before setting it aside. And then you’ve got all sorts of other characters who are going through that. Is everybody on the show in a way risking the chance of turning into Scarface?

PG: I hope they’re not all following in the same path. We try to think a lot about our characters and their choices and who they are and what they want to do. We also try to create contrast between these folks. Everything I say sounds like Writing 101 but there’s no Writing 102. At least that I know of. There’s only the basics and you have to go back to them.

One of the basics is contrast. As long as these characters take their own path, they all have their own struggles, then hopefully it creates more depth in Jimmy, and a better understanding of Jimmy.

The other possibility is that we just can only see the way we work and the way we think leads to certain results. That’s also possible.

MZS: I should clarify. I don’t want you to misunderstand and say that they’re all the same character. I don’t mean it that way, I just mean in the sense of when people ask me who’s the good guy on the show I’m not sure what to tell them.

PG: Here’s the thing though. And this is — I struggle with this. Is that people talk about morality as if all — this is going to sound like a Talmudic scholar here. They talk about morality and they’ll make comparisons that to my eyes are ridiculous. They say, well, "Kim is really just like Jimmy, because Kim participated in this scam or that scam." Anybody can see there’s a difference between staging a fake billboard thing and possibly getting somebody to pay for an expensive bottle of booze. It’s that, there are different qualities.

We had this on Breaking Bad , where people would say, "Well, Marie shoplifts, so it’s really just the same as cooking meth." What?

And the truth is that we all have — and we try to use our own lives in [writing] this — our own struggles about self-interest, and also following the rules, and also what you owe other people with your life. And Chuck has this way of thinking that’s wonderful because he has this wonderful ability to apply a very strict morality. And it’s not just morality, it’s about rules, it’s about following the rules. I actually have a lot of respect for Chuck.

We’re very lucky, because these actors are so much fun to work for. The characters are so much fun to write for. And to make it sound like we’ve got it all planned out is maybe doing the show a disservice. Because a lot of it is about process, a process of playing the game that we’ve established and trying to be true to where these folks are.

I don’t really think, Is this about a moral descent? And that’s a very good question. I think that we’ll find that out as the seasons go on, because Kim and Chuck are both going to be faced with a lot of tough choices, and it’s possible, I personally think it’s possible, that any of these characters could maybe not have a moral descent. Maybe there could be redemption. People get better as well as get worse. It doesn’t all move in one direction. I think a lot of it is to be continued.

MZS: [ To Seehorn ] Can you talk a little bit about Kim in relation to these questions?

MM: She’s always like this. Slip her a 20.

RS: Talk about Kim and the issues of morality?

MZS: And also just the way that she’s trying to make her own way in the world. And it’s very, very difficult for her because, on the one hand, she’s a woman in this all-male firm and also she doesn’t really seem to fit in there. Jimmy at least realizes he doesn’t fit in.

What are some of the characteristics of Kim, and what are some of the issues that you are dealing with when thinking about how to play these scenes?

RS: I think you’re right, too, and by right I mean because it aligns with what I thought, the presumption that she seems like a little bit of an outsider where she is, too. And I think that that’s one of the similarities that she shares with Jimmy.

When people would ask me at first, "How are those two people together? They seem so different," I always saw more about them that was alike. I think that they’re both loners in a way. They’re both kind of outsiders trying to fit in, and they both, in some cases literally, know the right suit to wear and the right mask to wear for the environment they’re in. And she is trying to fit in.

I tell people sometimes the specific artistry that goes into the whole show is deeper than even the viewers see. Jennifer Bryan, our brilliant costume designer — we talk about that. When I went in for my first fitting, instead of it being about anything that you might get at some other fittings I’ve had in my career, that’s about low-cut shirts or what kind of hot pants would this person wear, she said, "I think Kim’s trying to fit in but she can’t afford the suits they’re wearing yet. So even though you’ll be wearing navy blue and black, the audience won’t be able to see it, but I want you to know that I think they should be mismatched, because she still buys separates at Marshalls and Nordstrom Rack, trying to look like she has the full suit. And I literally started crying. I was having conversations about character at your costume fitting! To know that that’s how much everybody is rowing this ship is a beautiful experience for an actor.

I’m aware of Vince and Peter being two of the best people that can helm a ship, ever, I’m aware of that. But I’m also aware that they think that this is a collaborative art form. And you feel that when you’re on set and you feel that when you’re with the crew and when you’re prepping.

That being said, I do think she’s trying to fit in. And I like what Peter’s saying. I think the danger to any of these characters, I think, is when they think things are black-and-white. And I understand the comfort it gives all of us, and I think the audience feels this when you think about things in black-and-white terms. Like, If I just keep my head down and work hard enough things will be okay . And that’s not true, and it’s unsettling when that’s not true. And it’s not true for Kim and Jimmy, she needs Jimmy as much as Jimmy needs her, I think.

I do not think it’s a one-sided street at all, and when he tells her people do have personal agendas, people do have ulterior motives, you can’t just say like, Nope, I’ll pick myself up and I’ll fix this and I’ll do it myself. He warns her of those things and he is right in many respects — that there are things at play going on in her world that she can’t fix on her own, just by working hard enough and trying to do the right thing. She’s wrestling with that gray area and I think that that makes her more accessible to the audience — that it’s not just about being flawed, it’s about the struggle to decide.

Your moral compass, unfortunately, won’t stay on north when you move. You know what I mean? It just depends on who’s standing in front of you. It depends on what the situation is. And that’s the possible danger or the possible redemption for all of us, when you go: All right, it’s gray, everything is gray. Now what do you want to do?

MZS: It’s interesting that the two most important people in Jimmy’s life are both people who are constitutionally almost incapable of asking for help: Chuck and Kim.

RS: Yeah, she’s definitely a little anti asking for help. Yeah, and so is Chuck. And both of them get forced into positions where they have to ask for help.

PG: I feel like Chuck has been there for Jimmy all through Jimmy’s life when he really needed him. It does roll the other way.

MM: But it was easy when Jimmy was a soft target. When Jimmy was not an active participant in my life it was very easy because then he was an infant, he was a blob. But the most spine —

MM: He’s back in the bathroom. No, what I’m saying, when Jimmy was just a problem that I was, that I had to take care of, that was easy. When Jimmy became a lawyer, he became a very strange nightmare. It’s different. Time changes things.

MZS: Can we talk a little bit more about the intricacies of the wardrobe?

MM: No white buttons. You will never see men’s shirts with white buttons on our show.

MM: Especially a black shirt with white buttons. Anything other than a white shirt that has white buttons on it sends her right up the wall. It’s amazing.

RS: And as far as the fitting, another costume thing, and you see it, I think, only in one scene and it’s when he finally busts the Kettlemans and is sitting on their fireplace area in season one. You finally see his shoes, which are one of my favorite things, and they’re either Ferragamo or Gucci. The horse-bit logo, you know, that has the two metal rings and then the bar? And one of his is being held together by a paper clip. And they’re really old and worn out.

We had a couple of really early calls [while shooting that scene], and maybe [during] the first run of the scene you’re like, you know, trying to make sure you’re very present in the scene. And I would just look at his loafers and know instantly why Kim loves Jimmy. He’s fucking holding it together with a paperclip.

MM: Jonathan Banks, now, he is America’s badass. When he and Lee Marvin meet in heaven, hopefully a long, long way in the future, Lee’s going to go [ shudders ]. That’s how badass Jonathan Banks is. And he’s an amazing actor, he’s one of those.

RS: And a teddy bear in real life. He doesn’t want to tell anyone.

MZS: He’s also very, very, very, very drily funny. Like parched humor. I actually met Jonathan Banks after Lincoln Center played all of Breaking Bad , in a marathon [that ran] for a month before the finale of the show. And I went to a reception and Jonathan Banks was there with his daughter, who I think runs the social-media accounts for Jonathan Banks.

MZS: Yeah — and I went up to him and I just introduced myself . I said I’m a TV critic for New York Magazine and he said, "Oh, have you ever written about the show?" "Yeah, like 650 times." And I said, "As a matter of fact, I tweeted about you just this morning." And he said, "You ‘tweeted’ about me."

RS: He’s a great guy, and it’s so funny because people tend to — I’ve found — approach actors if they want to come up, a fan wants to come up and talk to you, they tend to approach you in the vein of the character that you most recently played. So if you’re playing a very open, accessible person people will walk up to you. Like I played a [terrorist] once and people were like, "Aahhhh, I loved you." So with Jonathan and Bob, Bob is — can you hear me?

RS: Don’t you find that when we would go out to the diner or something — Bob plays this very gregarious talkative person and Bob’s very generous and sweet and I would say this even if he couldn’t hear me. He’s very kind and generous with fans but can be a little more shy than they would expect as a person in real life. Less gregarious and jolly. But they’ll walk right up to him because they’re just like, "Hey, it’s Saul, ahhblahblah !" Jonathan, they expect like he might shoot them. So I’ll be in the diner and people are talking to Bob, and they walk by Jonathan.

There was a Marine, a big guy, that came by and just gave his business card and he’s like, [ very quickly ] "I don’t want to bother you, I just want to tell you ..." Left his card and ran away! And then the deal is, though, in real life they’re the opposite. While Bob can be pleasantly surprised by the fans, and shy at times to accept the attention, Jonathan is like, "Get back over here and talk to me! What are you doing?"

He wants to talk to everybody. He’s like your favorite weird uncle at every barbecue.

MM: There’s one quick note to that, though. Have you ever been with Jonathan at a restaurant and he doesn’t like his food? The look that he gives the waiters ... [ withering glance ] and once they’re all the way at the table [ another scary look ]. He’s hardly said anything and the guy has shit himself and is on his way back to the kitchen.

It’s wonderful, and it’s like he’s using a kind of currency. It’s just genuinely off-putting and charming as hell.

RS: Yes. And he uses them both to his advantage at all times.

He also doesn’t like being looked at by fans, like stared at without them saying something. So you’ll often be eating with him and people will be at the outside table thinking they’re being covert, and he will get up and be like, "If you’re going to stare at me, talk to me!"

But he’s so great and he’s so loving and generous and he loves his job. Like after, what is it, like 50 years or something? He still loves it. He loves to prep for it, he loves to work on it he likes to work with other actors. He’s great.

MZS: Can you jump in on this? You’ve logged more screen time with Jonathan Banks than I think anybody on the show.

BO: Not enough! Let’s go, get those two in the parking booth.

BO: Yeah! He’s, what can I say? He’s the best. He’s hilarious and he brings all that energy and very naturally falls into the role, although he is a super-sweet guy in real life. He’s a softy, I think, you have to say.

But honestly, when people ask me what do I hope happens next in the show, I hope that there’s more scenes with me and, you know, with Jimmy and Mike. Because together it does really feel like a comic duo. I just can’t help but giggle whenever my character is standing face-to-face with that guy. Because they just hate each other and need each other and it’s just the best.

MZS: Yeah, sometimes the two of you remind me of that Warner Bros. cartoon with the bulldog and the little dog he hauls around. What do you want to do today, Spike? I do hope you get more scenes with him.

MM: I’m still waiting. I can’t even think of a way they’d be in the same room. [ To Gould ] Work on it.

MZS: Seriously, you’ve got your notes for today.

RS: Kim is so reserved. Would they just have a staring contest?

PG: You have the big wheel of characters. Okay, here you go!

MZS: Let’s talk about Chuck and Kim versus Jimmy and Mike in one respect, which is: We know eventually where two of these characters are going to end up, and we also know that they can’t die, I don’t think.

And so in a sense for me at least much of the suspense of the show is concentrated on your two characters. We don’t know what’s going to happen, but also, they could kill you.

MM: People also leave Albuquerque rather than dying. That could happen too.

PG: This is something that puzzled me for quite a while because people would ask and they’d always say, "Well, Kim dies right? Or Chuck dies." And at first I thought, Well, hold on ... imagination. As Michael says, there’s a lot of things that could happen other than people being alive or dead. But then I think I’ve come to another conclusion — and you tell me if you guys agree — I think it’s like, they care, and they feel that these characters are in danger, because there’s that question mark.

And that’s also because these are Jimmy’s two compass points. These are the two characters who he has the most invested in — and deeply. There’s deep connections between Jimmy and both these guys.

I take that as a compliment or an admonishment not to take this too lightly, because the idea, there’s a lot that can happen, other than people ...

MZS: Well, there is — and I don’t want to seem argumentative; but then, I am a critic: You say there are other alternatives, that they could just leave it open or do something like that. But the audience loves these two characters so much that if you were to say you know Kim has moved to Saskatchewan, she’s not on the show anymore, people will be mad at you.

PG: Well, if we did it off-screen they would be. But I’m just going to argue back. Anything you do has to be played out dramatically. We’re all familiar with TV shows where a character just disappears season to season, and the other characters go, "Oh yeah, they moved." Because we couldn’t negotiate a contract with that person! And that’s what we want to avoid. Personally, I feel like there’s a lot more to say about both of these folks.

RS: Well, that’s good! Invite me to this panel to be fired!

RS: I was surprised by the number of people that thought there was only one conclusion. I was like, have you seen the writing that Vince does here? You [Peter] and Vince and Bob all addressed on one panel that we did that idea that you only saw Saul in such specific circumstances during Breaking Bad that there’s no reason why the two of us could exist or not exist in that world in some capacity. People are like: He never talks about his brother or Kim. I was like, Would you talk to Tuco? I have a girlfriend, she lives here! There’s so many possibilities to, with the Saul character, because it’s so contained. He’s always in life-or-death circumstances, in little tiny places.

MZS: That’s an interesting way to think about it, though — this idea that on a television show, when there are story lines and characters that we love, we want them to be present all the time.

And I myself as a viewer experience this a lot. If one of my favorite characters is not on a show for a week or two weeks or three weeks I start to get a little antsy, kind of resenting the show, like: What’s next ? But on some of the larger-cast shows, it’s almost inevitable that you’re going to go a week or two without seeing a [particular] person.

I interviewed the showrunners of The Americans , and within the course of the season there’ll be working different contacts, I guess, trying to turn somebody, blackmail somebody, and there’s different character arcs [for those characters]. I said, "Well, after the first story line is done," and one of the executive producers said, "Well, you don’t know that she’s done, we’re just not showing you what’s going on. She could be back six months from now or a year from now, whatever."

How do you handle that as a storyteller? Because sometimes shows run into trouble with that, where shows feel that they have to service every character?

PG: That is a problem. I mean, it’s certainly something we think about. We spend a lot of time talking about what’s going on with each of these characters.

But ultimately we have to go where the story takes us, if that makes any sense. We’re in the writers room, we’re always pitching. [ To Seehorn and McKean ] You guys are talking about having scenes with Chuck and Mike or whatever. We talk about those all the time. We come up with crazy scenarios. If it defies logic, if human behavior doesn’t follow the same lines, then we have to discard those.

But having said that, you know, [in] the first episode last season, season two, there’s no Chuck. No Chuck.

PG: No Chuck in the episode. And sometimes, you know, in the beginning of season one there’s very little Kim.

And the wonderful thing we have is that these actors have given us so much freedom and trust. We don’t suddenly get calls from agents: [ whispers ] "Why isn’t Mike in this?" We don’t. They’ve given us the creative freedom. We have mutual trust that somehow we’re going to try and get it right.

And I think the audience also understands that each episode is a unit, and we try and make each episode entertaining and complete in its own way. But we’re telling a story that goes on. And sometimes the story takes you down little eddies, or you end up going, as we did at the end of season one, to Cicero for most of an episode, and so we had very little. And that killed me, because I directed that one and I had very little of these two guys in that episode [indicating McKean and Seehorn] and I didn’t like that.

But it was where the story took us. And so that’s not a great explanation but I think as long as we try to have — try to keep in mind who these characters are and why they’re doing what they’re doing, I don’t think we’ll go too far wrong. I hope not. It’s served us so far.

MZS: I’d like to zero in on the storytelling just a little bit more. Which is — and talk about the look of the show, the feel of the show, the rhythm of the show, which is different from a lot of what you see on television drama in at least two respects. One of them is visually. There’s a lot of thought put into every shot, every camera move, every cut. That’s true for Breaking Bad as well. And also the length of scenes. It’s a one-hour show, which is what, 42, 43 minutes?

MZS: But within that, there are many dramas, which for the moment will be unnamed, where scenes will be 30 seconds, 45 seconds.

This show doesn’t usually do that. You’ll stay in a scene, it feels like they’re more shaped.

And within that there’s a sense of architecture in how a scene is built. What I’m wondering is, how do you integrate that with the performances? Because I’ve heard from a number of actors who’ve worked with highly controlled filmmakers, people like Tim Burton or Steven Spielberg, or someone like that, [that] they enjoyed the experience, they’re proud of their work on it, but there’s also something that can be frustrating about it, because you’re acting in pieces: this shot or that shot. It’s like, Now we’ve got that five-second piece that we need; now we’re going to completely relight the set and we’re going to come in from this angle and do this other thing.

How do you reconcile that? I mean, you can’t just stick the camera on a tripod and say, Now I have the scene, guys . A lot of shows can.

PG: This is a big question. We are very fortunate in that we have an incredible group of filmmakers working on the show. We have wonderful directors, you saw two clips there; so far you’ve shown one from Michelle MacLaren, who is just an astounding director.

MZS: One of the best action filmmakers in the world.

PG: Absolutely. And then you have Thomas Schnauz, who wrote and directed the last clip that you showed. These are people who really care deeply about how the story’s told visually. And so that’s very important. And we also have Arthur Albert and his team. And Arthur Albert’s —

PG: He’s incredible. He’s an incredible DP and a wonderful human being. Everybody really cares about the way the show looks. It’s interesting because the way you say it, it sounds almost in opposition. That here we have the way the show’s presented visually and here we have performance. I don’t really feel that those two things are in opposition, myself. I think that, and especially when you have actors up here who are both incredible stage actors. These are incredible performers in live situations as well as in film. They can do anything that we ask them. They have such ability and facility in what they do that it’s not like we’re asking people to — hopefully we’re not asking them to restrain themselves because of the way the show is shot.

And also I think to a great extent that’s the job of the director, to be able to capture the performance and also capture the visual context. So I don’t really think those two things are in opposition to me.

But in the end, when we’re sitting in the editing room — by the way, we have to also mention our editors. Led by Kelley Dixon and Skip MacDonald. They have a wonderful sensitivity to the characters and the performances. And if we get into the editing room and we have some clever visual idea but it undermines the moment, or if it’s not the best moment for me personally, we’ll go for the performance, we’ll go for the character.

But having said that, these [actors] give us something wonderful from every angle. And I’m not blowing smoke. Oftentimes, and I was lucky enough to get to direct both of them in a scene together late in the last season. And the hardest thing about editing that scene was that there was something wonderful and something different —

RS: The three-way confrontation. [Episode] nine.

PG: — where Kim finally tells Chuck off. I shot the hell out of it, these guys acted the hell out of it, and then we had to just decide where we wanted to be. Because everywhere we could be, there was something interesting. And so much of that is just attributable to the fact that they do such detailed work. And they also come in prepared, and on a television schedule it’s, and Bob — Bob?

MM: [ Addressing the ceiling with a prayerful expression ] Dear Bob.

PG: Bob works every weekend; usually each episode each week there’s a couple big scenes and the cast will get together.

PG: They rehearse off campus. And that, boy, I’ll tell you, that makes a huge difference because when you come in and you say, Well, I know you guys worked on this, can you show me what you did ? I go, Oh this is going to be great . All I have to do is shoot it.

RS: Well, there’s also two things. I feel like none of us wants the words to get hidden away. You’re right, these are eight- and ten-page dialogue scenes, which is unusual. And you want to get that, you want to be able to play with everything except trying to remember your lines. Because it just hinders you. You don’t get as much time to play and make up different ways to do it. And I don’t know about you, but I feel like some of what you’re talking about — visually when there’s extreme angles we’re using cinematic wides, which is also unusual on television. Certainly before Breaking Bad and now both of our shows use them.

Maybe it is they’re [skilled] stage performers, so there’s a comfort level with playing a whole scene as though it’s a play. And being able to play it with your whole body, knowing that your dramatic or sometimes dark comedic moment isn’t going to be here [ gestures to face ], if the best way to play it is the slope of the shoulders instead of squeezing out a tear that’s going to be allowed, too, and that’s going to be on film and might be the cut that’s used. I find freedom in that.

I also find freedom in the fact that AMC and Sony do not note them to death, so we don’t get rewrites, which is unheard of. You get a script and you get to go rehearse it and that’s it. There will be no rewrites.

Often [in television] you’ll get a scene, and you can start to work on it, but most likely it will be slightly altered to very altered the next day. And every day a network is watching it be rehearsed, or watching a daily and then giving notes and changing it, and the actor is trying to keep up. And so you can’t marry yourself to beats of a scene.

We’re getting eight- to ten-page dialogue, beautiful plays, beautiful little short films in and of themselves and then there’s freedom when we get there because now we’re going to just spend our time doing it 50 different ways and finding the right — like you said — the architecture of what the story line is.

MM: And it’s much more fun doing those scenes that last 30 seconds, because then you feel like an accomplice in a cheat. If you see a scene and you say, Oh, I get this , this is a page and a half and it ends with someone looking at the other person and going, "Do I, Steve? Do I?" That’s all we need folks, because nobody gives a shit.

The other point is, there are people — and thank God that we don’t have this — but there are people who are very, very good writers who are not getting notes from the studio or from the network but are rewriting constantly anyway. You know there are people who autonomously say, You know what, that big speech that you’ve got on page six here, I’ve totally changed it and we shoot in 30 seconds .

MZS: You’re working with David Milch now?

MM: I wasn’t going to mention that! My one experience with Milch was exactly the opposite. But I had heard that he would do that on Deadwood . Jim Beaver was talking about that, that he would suddenly say, "Yeah, I wrote this this morning around four and I’d like to do this instead of this other one." And then it’s like, "Well okay, thank God that I’m a robot."

Whatever the case, Milch’s stuff hits the air looking pretty damn good so it’s like: There are all different kinds of processes.

But like I say, it’s so much more fun to work on an eight-page scene that is about the way human beings really do interact with one another rather than something that looks like a clip reel. It’s just a different deal.

RS: And then our directors and our editors allow us to breathe in the scenes, which is also unusual. You can hold and it’s not going to be cut. You can know that.

[In] my scenes with Bob, there’s so much more that’s between the lines than on the lines, which I think portrays the history of a relationship. It’s what doesn’t have to be said. And we’re able to do that and know in our hearts it’s not going to get cut. They’re not going to try and make it snippy. They’re going to try to let it breathe.

MZS: Yes, you know, you and Peter both mentioned theater, and something kind of clicked for me when you said that, because that is an area where you can have an extremely controlled visual [that’s] very, very exact from moment to moment, and also have long scenes where things can breathe.

Something about the lighting on the show often looks theatrical. Where you’ll see a wide shot where three-quarters of the frame will be black. And it almost looks like there’s a spotlight on Kim or on Chuck. Something like that. Or old movies.

MZS: You talk about old movies? Do you think about old movies when you’re working on the show?

PG: Yeah, we talk probably more about old movies than anything else. We quote dialogue to each other. This is special for me to be right here where we are at Milk Studios because I grew up about three blocks from here, going to what’s now the Joyce, but I think at the time was called the Elgin. It was a revival house and getting to see — this was of course a period before home video. New York was filled with old movies. There was the Elgin, the 8th Street Playhouse, there was the Thalia, which I think still exists. Those for me were the formative experiences, watching movies that were made mostly before I was born. A lot of them silent movies from the '30s, '40s, and '50s.

And those are things that we talk about in the writers room. There are certain movies from the '70s, too. Certainly on Breaking Bad , The Godfather was something that we [talked about], that’s sort of the Ur-text for people of my generation, filmmakers of my generation. And certainly one of our touchstones on that show.

But this show, for me a lot of this show has influences, things like Billy Wilder movies. There are a few moments that really feel like that. Or movies from the '40s, the Preston Sturges films.

One of the things I love about Kim is that she seems to me in some ways to be in that tradition of female characters who could really hold the tiller of their own ship, who are self-contained, who are with the people they’re with because they want to be, not because they have to be.

There’s something about Rhea right now, in fact, with your hair, all feels like an echo of that.

RS: Not the first time I’ve been told I’m from the wrong era.

So old movies, those are very important to all of us as a writer. A lot of film buffs in the writers room. Film buffs from different eras, though. That’s one of the things that’s terrific about it. I tend to skew, I’ll be the one who talk about [older films] and then we have also some folks who are more contemporary in their taste, which is good.

MZS: I think we have time for some questions. Can we do that?

MM: Can we make the lighting more oppressive? There was a moment there I wasn’t squinting at all.

There are people out there! You will get quieter as you speak into the microphone.

Audience member 1 : Okay, I’ll try to speak extra loud then. Well first of all, I want to say thank you from all the fans for creating such an awesome show. It really makes it easy for us to be fans and we all, I think I can collectively say that we all love the show. So thank you all. Thank you, Bob in the sky. So my question I guess is actually for Peter. At the beginning of this conversation you said there’s no happy endings in showbiz. But I wanted to ask you whether there was the potential for happy endings in the Breaking Bad / Better Call Saul universe for anybody at all.

PG: I think so. I don’t think anything’s predetermined. We try not to; I don’t think so. Even with Breaking Bad we had a story that was set up from Vince from the beginning, which was Mr. Chips turns into Scarface. This show we have Jimmy McGill becomes Saul Goodman. Which in some ways seems is not quite as extreme a journey. It’s a different kind of journey. But then we also have the fact that this character, we also see as Gene in Omaha, Nebraska, working at a Cinnabon. So that, to me that hints that maybe there’s more to the story after Breaking Bad . So we’ll see.

MZS: I’ve actually wondered about that in the context of old movies. This, we could be in for a Third Man ending. Harry Lime comes back. Sorry, I spoiled it for you. 1948 so deal. Anybody else?

Audience member 2 : As an attorney I’m very intrigued by how much practicing law is part of the show. Do you get counsel from lawyers on "okay, Kim should be doing doc review?" Where do you get the nitty-gritty details from?

PG: Absolutely. One of the things I’m so proud about is the fact that we have a law show that the legal cases are old folks getting overcharged for toilet paper, drunk and disorderly, then there’s interstate banking regulations.

PG: I think one of our great concerns going into this was that it would be a law show. Because neither Vince nor I have that bend. We don’t have that procedural bend and we sure as hell don’t know anything about law. Luckily we’ve had a lot of help and fortunately we have some folks in the writers room who are from families of lawyers. Especially Gordon Smith. Both his mother and his sister are attorneys and we’ve had a lot of attorneys come and help us out. Season one there was more about small-scale criminal law. Moving into larger cases. And then season two we had to learn about things like doc review. We just tried to find out, what’s the bad job that Kim would get if she was out of favor.

RS: But then I spent all morning, like they brought in someone that literally showed you how you catalogue those things and stamp them all and code them and what you would highlight and how you would put it back in the box with a marker. Because it needs to look like something somebody had done a million times. That they could do without thinking.

PG: And all those documents, they actually had text that was relevant. It was written by our folks back in Burbank, led by Ariel Levine, who was at the time, I don’t know what she was but now she’s our writers’ assistant. But she and some of the other folks in the office wrote hundreds of pages of legal documents for you to overline.

PG: And for you to read when you were doing the big banking meeting.

MM: Well, here’s a little secret: I can’t read a thing without my glasses so I’m just faking. I wasn’t really taking anything in. Everything else I do is real but the reading is — You could say Mike McKean’s an asshole on every page and I would not know it. I mean, I’d know it but I wouldn’t know it from reading.

MZS: My friend Alan Sepinwall likes to imagine an alternate universe where you and Vince Gilligan do this meeting first and he wants to see a pitch meeting where you propose Jimmy McGill, elder-care lawyer.

Audience 3: I’m also a lawyer, not from this country, and I find it very interesting how you got a very, what I would consider a very ... in the Chuck character a very rule-oriented and very sort of procedural and knowledgeable person. And then this very extreme other character and I wondered did you actually model these two characters on actual lawyers or are you just thinking that they’re ordinary people that just happen to be lawyers?

MM: I take everything off the pages that we get for these guys. I had no model in my head about what this lawyer was. And I count on them. Everything I saw before me felt genuine and again they didn’t pitch me the entire season before. I didn’t know where it was going.

MM: Right, exactly. Which is why. I remember we were doing the fifth or sixth show and you called, you and Vince called and told me about the show where it was, it was the ninth episode of the first season where it was kind of revealed that Chuck’s been working behind the scenes to dynamite Jimmy’s progress. Which is a polite way of putting it. But it all made sense and it was almost like, Well, we’re giving you a heads-up here. It’s going to take a turn . I didn’t see the turn. I didn’t see it coming necessarily but it all made sense so like I said, I repeat myself, but it really is on the page. They tell me when I’m on the right track by putting it in the show.

PG: That’s exactly right. One of the glories of this particular kind of writing in filmmaking is that we get to watch the performances and learn about the characters from the way the actors interpret the characters. Kim was shaped a lot by Rhea’s interpretation of Kim. And likewise Michael, when we started the season, season one, Vince and I had written the scene between Chuck and Jimmy and there was a dimension to what you did in the scene and in the subsequent scenes that I hadn’t anticipated, I don’t think we anticipated. Which was, and I think it was maybe you could argue it was there in the writing but we didn’t see it until you did it. It was Chuck’s kind of gravitas and his pride. What a person he is to be reckoned with. Then we asked ourselves, Well, how does this guy feel about having Jimmy McGill for a brother ? And in a lot of ways, that insight has led to almost everything we’ve done since. But if we had to write the whole season as I know some people do, and then shoot it we would have never come to that. We would have never been able to watch what we were seeing coming in from the set or watch the rehearsals and go, Wait a minute, I see something else in this person. Something that I wasn’t expecting . And then write to that.

MZS: Can I follow up on that and ask: Have you or any of the other writers on the show taken a character in a different direction or given a character some different type of business or some new ability based on the actors? Or had a conversation with the actors, can you give me an example?

PG: Absolutely. Bob, I don’t know if you’re there, but Bob is — you’re well known for your British accents, aren’t you? You’re incredible at good British accents, isn’t that right?

BO: I’m renowned for being able to cram all the various accents of Britain into one sound.

PG: And I believe you’re also known for your singing abilities.

BO: I am. Equally. I am used as a reference point. I don’t know for what. What not to do.

PG: Since we know this about Bob, any time that we can have him sing or do a British accent, those are things we certainly — Michael is so musical that having him play the piano was a natural —

PG: You play the guitar. If we had had a guitar.

RS: Bob is a renowned bagpipe player, though.

RG: I want to get you out of your comfort zone.

Audience member 4: This is a question for Peter. How is the writing process for Better Call Saul different from Breaking Bad , by virtue of it being a prequel? And what I mean by that is are there certain threads, plot threads, that you in the writers room want to go down but then you realize we can’t contradict this background detail that we introduced in Breaking Bad ? Does that force you to be a bit more creative with how you develop different ideas and story lines but still be within the lines at least. We want Mike to shoot Hector Salamanca but we know that he can’t by virtue of Hector still being alive. We know that Jimmy never meets Gus. So, how does that force you to develop, or maybe work a little bit backwards?

PG: You picked two great examples. We have 62 episodes of Breaking Bad that we decided we want to abide by. I’ve had people pitch to me that actually maybe Jimmy never becomes Saul Goodman and that just turns out to be an alternate take. But we’re squares so we won’t do that. It makes our lives incredibly difficult that we know some of these characters never met each other. There are characters we’d love to have on from Breaking Bad who we just know met Jimmy/Saul for the first time on Breaking Bad . We'll come up with pitches and then someone will have to say, Well, it always seemed like Jimmy didn’t know this character or that character or Saul didn’t know this character or that character and so those wonderful pitches will have to go in the trash for the moment. So as you said, certain limitations actually force you to be a little more creative.

We experience this, we do this all the time to ourselves. The example I remember on Breaking Bad was that in the fifth season we had this machine gun, we flashed forward and we saw Walt with a beard, the house was all destroyed and in his trunk he had this machine gun. That’s more or less how it went. We had no idea how he was going to use the machine gun or who he was going to use it on and I can’t tell you how many times in the writers room Vince would say, "Oh we could do anything if we just didn’t have that that fucking machine gun in the trunk." And we keep doing this to ourselves because now we have Omaha and we know certain things about Omaha that we’ve learned and then the disappear-er and there’s all kind of things that we know that we want to abide by. We know a little bit about Chuck’s wife Rebecca. These are all things that are limitations but they often turn out to be the seeds of ideas and one of the tricks I think we learned on Breaking Bad was that a lot of time when people talk about writing they talk about going in the future and figuring out where you’re going and: Okay, we’re going to put these landmarks up in the future and this is where we’re going to go and the characters are going to do this and that and the other thing .

That’s valuable in itself but the thing I don’t hear people talking about that I think is just as valuable is going backward in your story. And saying, Is there, what was it they said about this, what was that look that Kim gave Jimmy in that particular scene? What did that mean? Or, I always thought this about the way these two characters were but maybe there’s another way to look at it . So we spent a lot of time actually going over territory that we’ve already been in and trying to figure out if there’s more use to be made of the material that’s already been on the show. And I think that’s one of the things that hopefully makes it feel, as much as we can, makes it feel like an integrated whole.

MZS: Somebody once built a very convincing case to me that this entire show was just Saul’s expanded fantasy while he was working at Cinnabon. That was the saddest thing I’d ever heard in my life.

PG: Would you guys find that satisfying? Show of hands?

Audience member 5: Hi, thank you for doing this. One of my favorite parts of this season was the montages that we see. I’m thinking of Kim and the rainbow Post-it notes or Jimmy trying to get fired with the wacky inflatable-arm man. Can you talk a little bit about how you conceive these montages and what it’s like to execute them?

PG: Talk about, what was it like to do, Kim with the Post-it notes?

RS: So much fun! So that’s five, right? Rebecca.

PG: Written by Amy Cherkis and directed by John Shiban.

RS: Amy wrote that great scene that starts my journey with "You don’t save me, I save me," which is also such a lovely scene to play. Then we go into this, Kim’s life, "I’m going to do this. I’m fixing this myself." This motto that she clings to for dear life of like "I can fix myself." So there was this huge montage scene and it was mostly me by myself that day. We had I think nine phone calls in total plus pocket dialogue, which is text that’s written past where you’re talking that they can use as additional dialogue. So there could be music over it or they’re going to cut in and out of it but you need to do all of it and act all of it. So it was about nine phone calls plus and then you said that you wanted it to look like it took place probably over four days. She doesn’t have an office anymore so they’re at various locations trying to find some degree of privacy. That meant that we took all of those phone calls and shot portions of them over and over in four different outfits in a variety of locations. Which actually takes a long time. It doesn’t seem like it would but it does.

It was an awesome day because the crew — it became like a pit crew because to get it done in 12 hours you’re also looking for a place to put on your mic and change the costume and then makeup and hair has got to fix that and prop people are trying to remember which color Post-it I had with which name on it and where it went. And I, to keep the phone calls straight so that they looked real, wrote the other half of them. I wrote the dialogue that the person would be saying back to me so that I could keep straight. You know a cold call to a friend’s mom in college is different than "a guy that I hang out with told me that his boss may have a case for me." There’s varying degrees of cold call and how you would speak to somebody and what they’re saying back to you so I’m trying to keep that straight with the names that are on the Post-its. And if they had turned the camera around, you have literally like this pit crew trying to change me as fast as they can and tell me what day it is and who. They were amazing.

Everybody helped me do it. As Bob said earlier, it is an amazing experience to think you know what you shot and then see what Kelley Dixon or Skip MacDonald or Chris Caleb in season one does with it. The fact that she displaced my dialogue from me speaking. There’s times in the montage where the dialogue is not matching my mouth and it’s even more disconcerting, you even get more how much Kim was trying to do and the "My Way," which was brilliant. Who picked that?

PG: That was John Shiban’s choice, I believe.

MM: What impressed me about that scene in particular was that I knew you were speaking to a different person each time. There were no two phone calls that were alike because there are no two people that you’re exactly alike with on the phone. Different level of "I know you from this or this or this, don’t you remember we met here?" Or we’ve know each other for 15 years. The timbre of the scene worked for me along with the brilliant cutting. It was every phone call was a real phone call.

MZS: That is a great scene and also because it’s about two things that television doesn’t usually dwell on, which is work, the actual details of work, and rejection. There’s a lot of rejection on the show. And you see them power through.

RS: And then you see the case taken away from me and that beautiful wide where I’m left standing by myself. I love the number of lawyers that have come up to me and said you’re right, it’s not a procedural. So we do some scenes with legalese but by and large the lawyers that have reached out to me have said like, Thank you for showing the work it takes . Like the actual grunt work and the politics of the hierarchy of getting ahead and getting squashed back down and all that. So we pay a lot of attention to detail in that.

BCS Team on the Difficulties of Making a Prequel -- Vulture

"There are characters we’d love to have on from Breaking Bad who we just know met Jimmy/Saul for the first time on Breaking Bad."

better call saul, better call saul season two, emmy insider, emmys 2016, awards insider

Because the costume designer doesn't like the look of them. [Vulture]


University's alumni freak out over attempt to force them into a new social network

Alumni of Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism are incensed over the school's decision to discontinue a widely used group email list and replace it with a new social network the university has created.

A message sent to the email list at 8:45 a.m. on Thursday from Belinda Clarke, director of communications and alumni relations at Medill, told the former students that the list will be gone on May 30.

"As I explained briefly in the newsletters that went out last week, the Northwestern Alumni Association has spent the last several years building a new online community for Northwestern alumni, students, faculty and staff called OurNorthwestern," Clarke wrote. "It’s now live, and each of you has a pre-loaded profile page in it."

Pushback came within the hour, with many alumni arguing that the university is trying to fix what isn't broken. So many emails went out to the group list that it reached its daily limit of 100 emails by 4:30 that afternoon, preventing anyone else from chiming in on the news. The email thread, which an alumnus forwarded to The Huffington Post, was wholly free of any support for the change.

"I don't need ANOTHER website to visit, ANOTHER social media profile to manage," one graduate wrote. "It just ain't gonna happen."

Currently, all Medill graduates are placed into the distribution email network by the university. Many of them use it to find jobs and apartments, solicit advice from fellow alumni and keep in touch with one another.

Clarke elaborated to the group list that the school's quarterly newsletters, events, ticketing and emails will soon be managed by the new OurNorthwestern site.

"The system has a few glitches, but over all, this is a good thing," Clarke wrote.

Not everyone thinks so. One graduate sent a sarcastic email blast after trying to use OurNorthwestern, saying: "Awesome. So utility. Much easy. Wowe."

Many alumni insisted they would not bother to get involved with yet another social network, especially since they already use email so frequently.

"Despite the obvious flaws of email, it will for all intents and purposes continue to [be] my PRIMARY way of connecting," one alumna wrote. "Not Facebook messages, not LinkedIn groups, not even OurNorthwestern posts."

Alan Cubbage, vice president for university relations at Northwestern and himself a Medill alum, told HuffPost that school administrators realize it's "a bit of a change," but are "confident that our alums will be able to adapt."

"We understand that the listserv is popular with a number of Medill alums and serves as a good tool for a variety of purposes," Cubbage said. "But we also think the new Northwestern alumni site, OurNorthwestern, will meet those needs, as well as provide other info to alums on events, clubs, access to the alumni directory and other services."

Cubbage wouldn't disclose whether OurNorthwestern or the old email list is cheaper for the university, but he said that "cost wasn't a key factor -- it's just a matter of trying to provide a good hub for all alumni communications."

Medill grads, for their part, are already trying to find an alternative way to stay connected via email. One set up a Google Group and reported back to the other alumni that 30 people had signed up within 15 minutes.

Northwestern University Alumni May Lose An Email List, And They're So Angry

medill listserv,northwestern alumni listerv,ournorthwestern,Medill School of Journalism,medill alumni,northwestern university alumni,Northwestern University,northwestern medill,northwestern


Penn Jillette Has Two Words For Anyone Saying You're "Wasting Your Vote"

All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to stand by and do nothing. That’s what has happened over the past century as the two party system has crushed dissent under their iron heel. They’ve bred ‘wasted vote’ propaganda into the country’s psyche and people have let it happen. If we ever want to break the two party stranglehold on our elections we have to stop falling for it. We need to fight back and be direct. Penn Jillette has two words for anyone that says you’re wasting your vote by voting for a third party: "Fuck you". Anyone that says that is empowering the corrupt system that has failed us.

Voting is one of the many privileges that Americans take for granted. Less than half the countries in the world have free and fair elections. Many are still run by one party dictatorships and autocrats. Luckily for us, we have had democracy in our republic since its founding. Although, we have recently given up control of the political system to a two-party duopoly. The inbred regime is not much better than a one-party state. They exert the same domination over our politics and if anyone considers voting outside the system it’s instantly labeled as wasting your vote. Nothing will change if that mindset continues.

People that say you’re wasting your vote are doing nothing more than telling you what to do. They’re saying "you need to support what I believe, don’t support what you believe". That is wrong. That is not going to do anything but make things worse than they already are. When people are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils evil still wins. The lesser evil candidate is still an evil candidate. People need to vote for what they believe in and who they think will make things better.

The only way to break this system is to vote for a third party candidate. The only candidate that’s on all fifty state ballots, and polling high enough to get into the Presidential debates, is Governor Gary Johnson. Penn Jillette endorsed the Governor because he’s a libertarian but anyone should be able to support what Johnson is doing. Fighting back against the duopoly that has ruined politics in this country is a crusade that all independents should be able to get behind. They just need to remember not to fall for the wasted vote fallacy.

Penn Jillette Has Two Words For Anyone Saying You’re "Wasting Your Vote"

Penn Jillette has two words for anyone that says you're wasting your vote by voting for a third party "and they aren't Merry Christmas".


My Husband Let Me Take a Year Off From Our Marriage — Here's What Happened

The results of the experiment were unexpected to say the least.

Rinaldi, 51, who lives in San Francisco, says that she and Mansfield, a brewer and wine-maker, were "stuck in a rut." She told the New York Post, "Our once-a-week sex life was loving, but lacked spontaneity and passion."

But, unimaginative sex isn't what convinced Rinaldi to try her experiment, and ultimately write a book about it. She says that she finally reached a breaking point in her early thirties when she realized that despite years of pleading, Mansfield would never be willing to have a child with her.

She wrote in The Wild Oats Project, "I refuse to go to my grave with no children and only four lovers ... If I can't have one, I must have the other."

"I reached a point that a lot of us face in midlife where I was about to have an affair. I knew I was going to cheat, or we were going to get a divorce and something had to change. And I figured if I was going to do it, I was going to be fair and give him the freedom. I knew it was a long shot," she explains.

And now for the terms: Rinaldi rented an apartment where she lived from Monday through Friday. There she was allowed to court as many suitors as she liked. On the weekends, she returned to her husband and they lived like a happily married couple without asking each other what or who they did during the week.

"It wasn't as strange as you might imagine. I liked it. It was the perfect balance, living on my own during the week and then returning home," she writes. "We had sex as always and the open marriage spiced things up — at least at first."

The few conditions were that they had to practice safe sex, could't sleep with mutual friends, and had to avoid "serious" relationships. Perfectly reasonable clauses, though they were all violated.

Rinaldi, who had been off the market for awhile, began her exploits by posting an ad on nerve.com. Within one day, she had 23 offers.

Her first paramour was a 40-year-old lawyer but she quickly moved on to younger men. She recalls texting her hubby goodnight from a Las Vegas hotel room immediately after a 23-year-old guy left her bed.

Over all, she had 12 encounters. Two were with women, one of them was a threesome.

After her trial year of condoned dalliances was up, however, Rinaldi and her husband struggled to make their marriage work.

"Moving back home full time proved more difficult than I had thought. After you open up a marriage and experience a whole range of sexual variety and aspects of yourself you've never had before, it's hard to put everything back in the box. You're changed."

"Suddenly I found an updated version of myself. The person I was at 44 was so much different than the woman I'd been when I was last single at 26. She was less shy, more confident, wilder."

Mansfield, had changed too. For nearly six months he had been exclusively seeing one woman, who happened to be younger than Rinaldi but she says that didn't bother her.

She wrote: "The turning point was hearing from Alden [one of the men she had slept with]. He sent me an e-mail, out of the blue, several months after the project had come to an end. Before long, we were having sex again. Being with him was exquisite. After reconnecting with Alden and falling deeply in love with him, there was no going back."

Robin says she's grateful for the experience of being married to Mansfield. "But for now," she continues, "For for this part of my life, I believe being with someone who is the most temperamentally like me is where I can learn more."

Rinaldi has been with Alden (monogamously) for the past five years. And Mansfield, who has since found a new partner, has been a good sport about her book. He said, "You have to write it. If you write it well, it won't really be about us, it will be about lots of marriages."

When asked if she'd recommend this experiment to other married women, Rinaldi told REDBOOK. "Not if they want to stay married."

But her biggest takeaway? "Passion comes in many forms and the passion I was looking for at first, which I imagined I'd get from motherhood, and then I thought I'd get through new lovers, I was able to find in other ways — from friendships with women. From creativity. But the key is to find that passion for yourself and not expect it to all come from your partner."

Although she's happy with Alden, Rinaldi says she doesn't believe in happy endings. "All I can say is life is a process and I'm a larger, more complete, more fulfilled woman now."

We think it's fair to say that every married gal gets a little antsy on occasion and Robin Rinaldi, author The Wild Oats Project, is no exception. But unlike those of us who simply wonder what it would be like to take a break from our husbands — Rachel and Ross style — Rinaldi actually acted on it. After being hitched to her spouse, Scott Mansfield, for 18 years, she made the critical decision to enter into a year-long open marriage so that she could experience life (and by life we mean sex) with other people. Rinaldi, 51, who lives in San Francisco, says that she and Mansfield, a brewer and wine-maker, were "stuck in a rut." She told the New York Post, "Our once-a-week sex life was loving, but

They each fell in love with other people and got divorced, and she wrote a book about it.


You won't believe who helped Apple reveal their superfast new iPad Pro!

Apple has proved the rumours true and revealed a super-sized iPad at tonight's iPhone 6s launch event - with the help of their arch tech brand rival.

The iPad Pro was initially unveiled by CEO Tim Cook, but he then brought on stage two employees from Microsoft to demonstrate how well Office works on the device.

The move provoked audible gasps in the room from the 7,000 strong crowd.

The iPad Pro is in direct competition with Microsoft's own Surface Tablet and the iPad's Smart Keyboard is very similar to the Surface’s keyboard cover.

The iPad Pro measures in at a whopping 12.9-inches across - much bigger than the existing 9.7-inches of the iPad Air 2.

Number crunchers will be impressed by the 5.6 million pixels on the iPad Pro's display.

The screen of the iPad Pro is the same width as the height of the iPad Air 2.

Phil Schiller says that’s so you can use full screen iPad apps, and have plenty of room for side-by-side windows.

It has more pixels on its Retina display than a 15" MacBook Pro.

And, in a remarkable about-turn from years of rivalry, Apple welcomed Microsoft in to announce that Microsoft Office will run on the iPad Pro.

It also has a new processor that Apple calls the A9x chip. The battery life will, according to Apple, last for 10 hours.

Apple reveals giant super-fast iPad Pro at special iPhone 6s event

The new 12.9-inch tablet has the same width as the height of the iPad Air 2