Will “Better Call Saul” live up to it’s predecessor “Breaking Bad” ? The slow rise of “Breaking Bad” to its ultimate greatness may buy “Saul” a little time to find its own strengths but the anticipation of an eager audience means it needs to start out of the gate strong.
Chris Buck for Variety
The high-altitude desert climate is hard enough to handle, with soaring temperatures that lead to dehydration; there’s also the occasional determined paparazzo. Aside from series star Bob Odenkirk, who’s in nearly every scene, the production’s medic might be the busiest guy on set, constantly reminding everyone to drink water and apply sunscreen.
So today’s location shoot, though a bit cramped, has everyone smiling — as, likely, will be “Breaking Bad” fans when they get to see it. It’s Loyola’s Diner — yes, that diner, where we see Mike Ehrmantraut (Jonathan Banks) and the ever-so-charming Lydia (Laura Fraser) first meet.
But there’s no Stevia in sight. “Better Call Saul,” which has been conceived by showrunners Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould as a prequel to “Breaking Bad,” is set in 2002 — before the birth of the artificial sweetener, and before Saul Goodman became Saul Goodman. That was just a made-up name, anyway — so here, he’s Jimmy McGill.
All involved — from the creators to the cast to the network and studio executives — know all too well they’re walking a tightrope. With “Breaking Bad” holding a rarefied place in the TV pantheon, the pressure is on for “Better Call Saul” to honor its predecessor’s legacy and perform well for AMC.