"Better Call Saul doesn’t have the kind of breakneck, 'bingeability,' so to speak, that Breaking Bad has," says Keith LaFountaine. "In fact, in virtually every way it’s a completely different show. It’s more meditative, more focused on character, and less interested in the cinematic action and tension that made Breaking Bad one of the most popular and highly rated TV shows of all time. Yet, it’s for those precise reasons that I find it to be more impactful than its predecessor. In Better Call Saul, (Vince) Gilligan has not just deepened the character of Saul Goodman, but the world within which he exists." LaFountaine adds: "Better Call Saul feels more confident, more assured in its characterization. While certain characters, like Skylar, didn’t always get the depth they deserved, Saul gives everyone — from Jimmy, to Chuck, to Nacho, to Kim, to Mike — much deserved depth and insight. And because Gilligan doesn’t have a pulse-pounding plot pushing him forward at every second, requiring every moment service that Scarface ending, he can let the camera linger on seemingly innocuous moments. Moments like Jimmy and Kim talking are given an appropriate amount of time and weight. It helps make their ups and downs more impactful. Similarly, Jimmy’s relationship with Chuck is given more time than it probably would have gotten on Breaking Bad. As a result, it creates some of the most satisfying drama and suspense in the show." ALSO: Which is the better show, Better Call Saul or Breaking Bad?