Examining the transformation of Walter White from a protagonist to an antagonist, in relationship...

Dao Minh NguyenFinal Paper - Breaking Down "Breaking Bad"

1

Examining the transformation of Walter White from a

protagonist to an antagonist, in relationship with viewers'

enjoyment, through media entertainment theories

"He's well on his way to badass" - Brian Cranston

The first moment viewers are exposed to Walter White - the main

character of Breaking Bad, we thought and presumed that he is such

a miserable man. Viewers showed sympathy to him without

acknowledging that through five magnificent seasons of Breaking

Bad, show creator Vince Gilligan and his writer team will twist

the whole idea of a simple "50-year-old man who makes a very modest

middle-class income" (Romano, 2013) into a dark, violent and complex

narrative journey arc of a master-mind criminal, Walter White.

Undeniable, Walter White is an amazing, irrational and

unconventional character in TV history. From the very infamous

quote of Gilligan "turning Mr.Chipps into Scarface" from Cranston's

statement "Never in television history" (Romano, 2013), we admit that

exploring Mr.White's process of changing from a protagonist to an

1


2

antagonist has been always an interesting case. Through a great

number of interviews, reviews and critical essays on magazines

and media, such "transformation of a hero into a villain" is treated as the

central theme and topic. This show is not totally about chemicals

or how to cook crystal methamphetamine; but it also embraces the

question "What makes a man "bad" - his actions, his motives, or his conscious

decision to be a bad person?" (Douthat, 2011). Interestingly, those

questions also play an extremely crucial role in entertainment

media study; and are used to evaluate and explain why viewers (in

general term) and individuals (in specific term) reach highest

enjoyment when they are exposed to morally ambiguous characters

narrative presentation, such as Walter While in Breaking Bad. For

that reason, my agenda in this paper is suggesting a different

way to examine the transformation of Walter White from a

protagonist to an antagonist in which entertainment media

theories, such as Affective Deposition theory (ADT) and Moral Disengagement

(MD), can be applied to through a moral spectrum of Walter White,

includes his motive, action and multiple conscious decisions.

2


3

Recently, media entertainment scholars pay attention to the

character complexity type instead of simple one. All previous

researches (Krakowiak, 2008; Shafer & Raney, 2012; Krakowiak &

Tsay Vogel, 2013; Janicke & Raney, 2014) focus on the explanation

of viewers' enjoyment toward morally ambiguous characters by

using different theories. Among those theories, both ADT and MD

have one similar point that focuses on the relationship between

viewers and media characters, include television fictional

characters. The difference between those two is while ADT takes

morally clear characters as central of the theoretical core

(process and outcome of media), MD switches to the new direction

which tries to explain why viewers accept good guys do bad things

(outcome only). In brief, the type of morally ambiguous character

like Walter White always is an interesting case from the point of

view of ADT and MD. According to ADT, viewers come to highest

media enjoyment when good characters get reward, bad characters

get punished and vice versa (Zillmann, 2000; Raney, 2004).

Applies that theory to Walter White's case, we can clearly see

why viewers form the root for this character from the beginning

of the show. In the pilot episode (1.01), Mr.White first time3


4

appears in "a burst of darkness and violence: Walt driving that R.V. through a desert

in a crazed dash, wearing nothing but tighty-whitey briefs and a gas mask. Two males

bodies roll in a soup of liquid, broken beakers and cash in the cabin" (Segal,

2011). Viewers wonder "Who is this guy? What is happening?". The

first impression about White is a mess. Through the pilot, Walter

White's first identity is revealed:

...a high school chemistry teacher who has fallen into some

financial trouble. When White learns he has terminal lung

cancer, something inside him snaps, and he decides to use his

familiarity with lap equipment to provide for his medical

expenses as well as his family's future: He teams up with a

former students, played by Aaron Paul, and starts dealing

crystal meth" 1

It seems to viewers that Gilligan starts the show in a normal

way: he pitches the first impression of Walter White to viewers

in a way that we do not have another choice except showing the

empathy toward him. There are several scenes which writers want

1 "Breaking Bad": Vince Gilligan On Meth And Morals http://www.npr.org/2011/09/19/140111200/breaking-bad-vince-gilligan-on-meth-and-morals

4


5

to lead viewers into Walter White's miserable world: Skyler - his

wife brings to him a traditional breakfast with faked bacons is

arranged as number 50, his age. It is not even real bacon,

according to his son, Walter Jr. In the next scene, we continue

to know the fact that he is a high school teacher, who does not

gain any respect from his students (the male student drags the

chair and creates annoying sound, shows a bad attitude while

Walter is speaking). Thus, he is overshadowed by his brother-in-

law, Hank, during his 50th birthday party by Hank's success as a

DEA agent. Latter, in the bed scene, viewers witness the

shocking, freezing and disappointed face of Walter when he got a

"hand job" from his wife, as a birthday gift. It is full of

humor, but the moment when Skyler yells "Keep... Yes! Fifty-six. Oh!" is a

final string on camel's back, makes viewers have to like this

character. In the end of pilot episode, as Gilligan said "... when I

came up with the idea for Breaking Bad, I was about to turn 40 years old, and perhaps I

was thinking in terms of an impending midlife crisis... To that end, I think Walter White,

in the early seasons, is a man who is suffering from perhaps the world's worst midlife

crisis" 2

2 "Breaking Bad": Vince Gilligan On Meth And Morals http://www.npr.org/2011/09/19/140111200/breaking-bad-vince-gilligan-on-meth-

5


6

From that moment, we root for Walter White's "success" when he

decides to become a drug cook. As ADT predicts, once we judge

Walter White as a good character from the beginning, we start

loving, liking him and whatever he is doing and is going to do,

we root for it. We enjoy watching him get "rewarded" from getting

into drug empire in the first season. At this moment, Walter

White is not simple as a purely good, a truly protagonist, a non-

vague perfect softy male character anymore. When he decides to

step in to drug business, he turns into a type of character who

does bad things (sometimes) for good reason. To explain for this

enjoyment of Walter White at this point, WD suggests that:

When individuals see another person perform an immoral act,

it is typical for them to condemn this action. However, at

times, such as when the individual commits the immoral act

him- or herself or when the perpetrator of the act is well liked,

individuals may be motivated to excuse or justify the bad

behavior in order to maintain cognitive consistency.

(Festinger, 1957)

and-morals

6


7

In Raney (2004), he expanded "on this idea and suggested that because

individuals are motivated to enjoy entertainment content, they will justify the bad

behaviors of protagonists through a process of moral disengagement". In short,

whatever the protagonist do or will do, viewers will find an

excuse or a reason to make it acceptable. In Walter White's case,

that is exactly what we are doing after witnessing his miserable

life, include killing people, cooking meth, lying to his wife,

his son, manipulating and blackmailing his formal student - Jesse

Pinkman to work with (and then for) him, to name a few. In deed,

we, as viewers, play moral judge role in Breaking Bad. We can judge

Walter's actions base on various moral perspectives and jump to

conclusion that he is doing immoral things for good reason. Takes

the first time he kills a person for example. In Episode 1.03

"...And the Bag's in the River", Walter has to decide to let

Krazy-8 go or kill him. From the beginning of that episode,

Walter is still a miserable man, again. We see him clean all the

disgusting, nasty remain from the dead body on the floor, which

is caused by Jesse, who refused to listen to his instruction. On

one hand, we acknowledge that Walter gets stuck in another bad

situation. He cannot decide what to do. He is struggling: got7


8

fight with Jesse, his only partner at this time. More

importantly, he cannot share or talk with anyone about this. On

the other hand, he shows his good side by taking care of Krazy-8,

his enemy: cleaning his waste and preparing sandwich carefully.

That is the perfect idea of a protagonist. Viewers know this and

hope for a resolution, a way for him to get out. Not only does

Walter get confused about Krazy-8, but so do we. The scene when

he notes down the reasons to kill or release his enemy to two

columns is a clearly proof that he is stuck, and he is still a

good person. Walter, at this point, still acts morally. For that

reason, when he kills Krazy-8 in a brutal way, viewers still

stand on his side because he kills (for the first time in his

life) to protect him and his family. He kills for self-defense.

Kill or to be killed. Hence, killing at this point for Walter and

viewers is acceptable.

MD is right in this Krazy-8's case. However, when we discuss

about another killing that is done by Walter later, we ask

ourselves if there is any excuse for Walter's actions! Not

8


9

directly kill Jane, Jesse's girlfriend in Season 2, but

obviously, Walter has to take full responsible for her death:

Jane flops onto her back when Walt tries to rouse Jesse.

Moments later, Jane starts retching. Walt moves to help her -

she's still passed out — but he pauses. Walt watches Jane

struggle as she asphyxiates on her vomit until she finally lies

still and dies. Shaken, Walt puts a hand to his mouth and tries

to recompose himself.

Breaks down this action in a careful way, viewers already know at

this point, Walter is not completely morally clear anymore. The

fact that Walter makes himself sink deeper and deeper into a

criminal's world still makes us root for every time he does not

get caught by his wife, Hank or DEA agents. On the contrary, we

begin questioning his motive. Walter decides to return to

"business" even after he said "I'm out" on Episode 2.10 "Over";

and he has a conflict with Jesse about the share of payment.

Jane, who now knows Jesse is a drug dealer blackmails Walter to

give back Jesse's that money. In the end of "Phoenix" episode

2.12, Walter watches and stares at Jane, witnesses her death

9


10

without helping her. There are two possibilities: first, if we

stand on Walter's side, we can come up with an excuse that he

does that for protecting Jesse. Previous episodes show us Jane is

not a good influence for Jesse since she leads him to heroin:

more addictive, more powerful and more dangerous. Walter found

out about that when he picked up the needle in Jesse's bedroom.

Moreover, Walter never wants Jane die from the first place. Jane

falls to other side while he is shaking Jesse. Second, if we, as

viewers, stand against Walter, we will hold on to the selfish

side of Walter this time: Jane is blackmailing him. She is an

absolute threat to his money and his secret. Besides, she is

turning Jesse against him and sooner, Jane will take him away

from Walter's "wing". Instead of finding a way to save Jane when

Walter panics, he shows us a cold look at her first, then mercy

expression later. Actually, Walter's action also leads indirectly

to the disaster, the mid-air collision, which is caused by Jane's

father in the end of Season 2. In brief, Jane becomes the first

but not the last "innocent" victim whom Walter "kills" to get

what he wants.

10


11

If taking Jesse's safety as an excuse, viewers can easily find

the scene when Walter drives over two gang members of Gus to save

Jesse in Episode 3.12 "Half Measures" familiar. He continues to

shoot another one in the head with cold blood and tells Jesse

"Run". Base on the narrative presentation of this episode, there

is a chance we can interpret that Walter's killing is making up

for his previous action, which leads to the dead of Tomás,

Andrea's young brother before. In another way, we can defense for

Walter's act that he actually kills these two men (bad guys, drug

dealers, killers, villains, gang members, "not worth to live") to

save Jesse from gun fighting 3. Furthermore, viewers continue to

question Walter's moral when in the end of Episode 4.13 "Face

Off", the close-up scene of a Lilly of the Valley plant implies

that he had poisoned Brock from the beginning to manipulate Jesse

into his plan. At this point, is poisoning an innocent child

still acceptable, even it leads to Gus's death - a death of a

super villain in Breaking Bad? Once again, the right to decide

3 In an interview with Bryan Cranston by Merle Ginsberg on The Hollywood Reporter magazine, Cranston reveals that "the way we shot that scene was he gets out of the car, one man is dead, and he sees the other man badly injured.He looks at Jesse and laments the fact that there's no choice for him, he has to kill him. The way Vince Gilligan edited was that I did not hesitate at all,I just shot him. I was shocked. I recoiled, watching that"

11


12

belongs to us, the viewers. For those reasons, we can jump to

conclusion that whatever Walter does, we as viewers always find a

suitable, reasonable excuse to defense him. We ask ourselves

since when killing people is acceptable, even when they are bad

men. Viewers keep coming back to this presentation, this argument

and this interpretation whenever Walter kill people (or does

immoral things): when he kills Mike in Episode 5.07 "Say My

Name", when he hires Jack's White Supremacist Gang kill ten guys

in jail or when he returns to kill Jack's Gang for revenge, and

so on. Comes back to Tomás's death and two men are killed by

Walter. We find these bad guys' death just so acceptable since

they used children to sell drug. Moreover, they killed Tomás, who

was just a child (but do not forget Tomás was the one who

murdered Combo, Jesse's formal friend before). Viewers have no

problem with these deaths since all of them are interpreted in a

reasonable way: it is karma.

If applying ADT and MD to explain the enjoyment of viewer in

Breaking Bad and Walter White's narrative presentation, sooner or

later, we are able to figure out that there is a gap in those

12


13

theories. Since ADT only applies to the narrative presentation of

morally clear characters and MD explains to the acceptance of

immoral behaviors of good characters, what will happen when the

changing process of Walter, from Mr.Chipps to Scarface, from a

protagonist to an antagonist happens in front of viewer's eyes?

In the end, who is Walter White? Is he a protagonist, an

antagonist or an antihero? In Janicke & Raney's research, they

defy "antihero" in both literary study and media study as are

morally complex characters whose actions range on a continuum

from good to bad, in contrast with clearly moral heroes and

clearly immoral villains (2014). Bases on this definition, at

some point of Breaking Bad, Walter White used to be a protagonist,

an antihero and then an antagonist. The reason why we cannot defy

him in a clearly, non-vague way is that he is a complex

character, whose moral is not easy to judge. As I pointed out

above, judging him as good or bad is depended on viewers' moral

judgment. During more than 50 hours of Breaking Bad's story, the

narrative presentation more than one time makes us as viewers

ambiguous or feel uncertain about Walter and his actions.

Gilligan tells himself that "even though this is a time in television of darker

13


14

anti-heroes, to me, Breaking Bad is very much an experiment" (Romano, 2013). In

deed, Walter White is an experiment case too. "Walt is a case study. He

is a very interesting, complex, damaged individual with a lot of wonderful facets..."

(Romano, 2013). Describes about Walter's evilness, Douthat argues

in his review article

"this is a series in which the main character has actively

become evil, but we still want him to succeed. At this point,

Walter White could do anything and I would continue to

support his case. In fact, his evolution has been so deft

that I feel weird describing his persona as "evil", even though

I can't justify why it would be incorrect to do so (2011)".

As viewers, there are some interesting questions which are raised

along with Walter's process of changing: How many times he does things

for no excuse and Since when he actually transforms to another type of character?

To answer those questions, we need to trace back to an argument

that I find very precise. In Meslow's article on The Atlantic

website named "On "Breaking Bad", Family is a Motivation and a Liability", he

emphasized that "One of the most disturbing aspects of the Breaking Bad universe

is the idea that caring about people is just a weakness to be exploited" (2012). It

14


15

is absolutely true. What is the ultimate excuse Walter uses for

his series of damaged actions: family. From the beginning of this

show, family and responsibility for family's members has become

the most reasonable excuse for every action in Breaking Bad. Walter

starts cooking meth "for the (ostensible) good of Family was

once, at least in theory, the reason for Walt's actions."

Walter: "I just want you to know that, no matter how it may

look, I only had you in my heart." Episode 1.01 "Pilot"

To be honest, since then whenever Walt has needed justification,

or a reason, or an excuse for his dangerous, extreme, outrageous,

immoral actions, he is turned to "family". There is more than one

time in Breaking Bad, Walter defenses his actions by taking

"Family" as an excuse. For instance, Episode 1.03 "...And the

Bag's in the River", Walt has little confession with Krazy-8

about his situation: he has to cook meth to earn money quickly

for his family. In many conversations with his wife, Skyler, he

states that family is matter to him and all he has been doing is

for them. Let's recall to the real reason why Walter kills Krazy-

8 in Season 1. In the scene when he is sitting in bathroom and

15


16

writes down to two columns "Let him live" and "Kill him", no

matter what or how many convincing the "Let him live" reasons

are, only "He'll kill your entire family if you let him go"

reason in "Kill him" is strong enough to make viewers as moral

judgment feel satisfy after Krazy-8 is killed. In addition, one

of reasons why Walter decides to kill Gus is his terrible threat

to Walt's family "I will kill you wife. I will kill your son. I will kill your infant

daughter" (Episode 4.11 "Crawl Space"), and "that set Walt on his path to

triumph" (Meslow, 2012). That is the reason why Walter changes

from a protagonist (who is so miserable in the pilot episode) to

an antihero in the middle of his transformation. Not only Walt,

but Jesse, Mike, Skyler or even the clearly antagonists such as

Gus and Lydia also root for family issue. As Walter says in the

final of Episode 5.02 "Madrigal": "There's no better reason than family".

Obviously, through entire series Breaking Bad, viewers have seen

virtually every character betray their morals and their best

judgment in an attempt to protect the ones they love the most.

Comes back to Walter's excuse, he usually gets the approvement

from viewers since we all agree with him that protecting and

acting bad things for family is acceptable. On the contrary,16


17

viewers are not naive if we just root for Walter's excuse

forever. At some point in Walter's story arc, we come to

realization that he performs immoral acts consciously and for no

excuse but himself. Walter has more than one chance to get out of

drug business but he did not do it. In Episode 1.05 "Gray

Matter", Walter walked away from both Elliott's job offer and

Hank's assistant financial help that would cover his treatment

financial. He decides proudly to come back to cook meth to

protect his own pride. Viewers can see at this particular moment,

Walter has been breaking bad and officially puts one of his foot

to the illegal side, because he takes no reason, no excuse to

come back to cooking meth. In the first Episode 2.10 "Over", he

said "I'm out" to Jesse in the restaurant but in the end, he gets

into bad mood in his own party for no reason. In my opinion, his

face expression when Walter Jr. throws up in the pool is

priceless. It shows us another Walter's characteristic,

personality that does not belong to Mr.White as a teacher, a

husband or a father. Later, Walter finds out that he needs to

come back to drug business. The statement he gives in the end of

that episode in the parking lot "Stay out of my territory" is a clearly17


18

proof for his conscious mind: he is acting for himself. Walter

shaves his head in Season 1 because of the chemo. However, the

bald head, the goatee mustache, the wrinkles on his forehead

become his personal favorite look and the identical

characteristic for Heisenberg. In season 2, he decides to shave

his head for purpose, because he gets use to that look. In the

final episode, Walter finally admits with Skyler, with viewers

that "I did it for me. I liked it. I was good at it. And, I was really... I was alive."

(Episode 5.16 "Felina"). Gilligan said:

"So I think that does mean that with every season, with

every episode perhaps, there are people who shake loose and say,

you know what, this guy is too damn dark. I can't root for

him anymore. I liked it better when he was doing what he was

doing for his family. But now I think that's an empty statement

and a lie, and I think that what's he's doing is for his own

personal benefit, and I just don't buy the reason that he does

what he does anymore" (Romano, 2013)

"If there's a larger lesson to "Breaking Bad", it's that actions have consequences"

Gilligan said during lunch one day in his trailer (Segal, 2011).

18


19

This is a key statement, a crucial point that attaches to the

transformation from Walter White to Heisenberg. Walter's actions

actually defy who he is, and viewers are the one who judge that.

In deed, Walter White is a challenge for viewers to judge or defy

him in a moral way. At first, we were introduced to this man in a

way that made him impossible to dislike; and because we

experience this show through whichever character we understand

the most - the audience is placed in the curious position of

continuing to root for an individual who is no longer good. Since

Walter's actions defy his own image and identity, Walter White

from Season 1 to Season 4 has changed, not because of social

environment, but it is an absolute perfect product of his own

consciousness. "He changed himself. At some point, he decided to become bad..."

(Douthat, 2011).

In the end, who is the characters viewers root for: Walter White

or Heisenberg? We cannot separate any identities since they exist

in a same character. However, the more Walter becomes or enjoys

being Heisenberg, the more viewers get away from him since

Heisenberg presents for immoral act, an antagonist, a "second

19


20

Gus" in Breaking Bad. In Episode 2.12 "Phoenix", Walter shows his

infant daughter the money he hides behind the wall with proud

voice "Daddy gets that". In Episode 3.04 "Green Light", Walter gets

angry with Jesse not because Jesse decides to return to cook

meth, but he feels offensive when seeing the pure crystal Jesse

made without needing his help. Walter's pride is threaten by his

own formal high school student, who knew nothing about basic

chemical before working with him. Walter wants to address his

name, his product and his reputation "This. This. This is my product. This is

my formula. This is mine." Walter continues to come back to Heisenberg

identity when he says to Skyler in Episode 4.06 "Cornered":

"Who are you talking to right now? Who is it you think you

see? Do you know how much I make a year? I mean, even if I

told you, you wouldn't believe it. Do you know what would

happen if I suddenly decide to stop going in to work... It ceases

to exist without me. No... I am not in danger, Skyler. I am

the danger... I am the one who knocks"

Walter literally states that he is the danger. In fact, Walter

successfully makes his life more dangerous, exciting and darker

20


21

so many times than his life before he was diagnosed with lung

cancer. Bryan Cranston said about what Walter is feeling in the

very first moment viewers are exposed to his look, in his

tightie-whities and is holding up a gun: "To feel wanted... To feel

dangerous. Danger is cool... for the first time in 25 years he's feeling again. And even

fear is better than numbness. So he's willing to accept it, and possibly encourage it."

(Newman, 2008). Not only proudly presenting his identity to his

wife, in Episode 5.07 "Say My Name", Walter addresses with

Declan, dares him to say his name, not Walter White, but the

legendary meth cook Heisenberg and he is so proud of that. The

final scene when Walter falls down in the lab, we can argue that

he dies as Heisenberg, as Gilligan said "In my mind, the ending is a

victory for Walt" (Brown, 2013). Walter can die and brings his

reputation and drug empire as Heisenberg with him.

Looking at the transformation of Walter White, viewers like and

show sympathy for Walter from the beginning. We hope and enjoy

watching Walter reaches success in his drug empire. During his

changing to Heisenberg, viewers switch to another side. We

develop opposite feeling and different kind of enjoyment toward

21


22

Heisenberg: we wait for the day Walter gets punishment and the

enjoyment is lowest when Heisenberg takes all the victory.

Nevertheless, in the final episode of final season, when Walter

decides to come back to town and seeks revenge for Hank's death,

viewers re-form the liking relationship toward him and show the

same sympathy as we did from the beginning: Walter returns to an

antihero role who acts immoral to get justice. That is ADT. On

the other side, we can also interpret that the enjoyment of

Walter's vengeance according to MD, which is finding any excuse,

reasonable explanation to Walter/Heisenberg's immoral acts.

Gilligan, the creator of Walter White and Heisenberg defenses him

as:

"...a very rational mind. He's a scientist. He wants to be

in control of situations. More often than not, he's not in

control. But so much of his desire for change stems from a lack

of control. And yet he also has this hubris that he can control

things. As we often do from time to time--these are all our

live, and we can all sympathize with that."

22


23

We can come up with an alternative excuse that the reason Walter

becomes Heisenberg (or really broke bad) is that the first time

ever in his life, he does something he is good at it and be proud

of it, even when it is illegal.

"He certainly could lie to his family, and he can lie to

himself, and he can make these lies stick. He can make

himself believe, in the face of all contrary evidence, that he is

still a good man. It really does feel to us like a natural

progression down this road to hell, which was originally

paved with good intentions." - Vince Gilligan (Brown, 2013)

In conclusion, Breaking Bad is not only one of the greatest series

of all time (John, 2013), but it also creates one of the most

ambiguous character of all time, Walter White. Talking about the

relationship between him and viewers, "Walter White progresses from

unassuming savant to opportunistic gangster - and as he does so, the show dares you

to excuse him, or find a moral line that you deem a point of no return." (Segal,

2011). Interestingly, when we apply two media entertainment

theories in Walter's case, somehow we can explain and find a

reason why we have such a complicated relationship with Walter.

23


24

Breaking Bad is a story of a protagonist who decides to walk away

from the halo of purely good light or purely bad to the dark side

of a complex antagonist/villain. That is the important point

differentiates Walter and other antiheroes characters, such as

Tony Soprano or Dexter Morgan: "Walter changes himself" (John, 2013).

Viewers are drawn into Breaking Bad's narrative presentation world,

Walter's transformation; and we accept Breaking Bad's writer's

challenge: we dare to judge Walter in any way we can, but in the

end, we become attach consciously to his moral/immoral acts,

motive and decision. Moreover, we come to acknowledgement that as

viewers, we enjoy his process of changing as well as judging him.

The show is dark and intense, however, in my opinion it never is

the real intention, but the single transformation arc of Walter

White is.

24


25

Work Citation

Brown, Lane. "In Conversation: Vince Gilligan on the End of

Breaking Bad" Vulture 12 May. 2013. Web. 19 April. 2014.

Douthat, Ross. "Good and Evil on Cable" The New York Times 28

July.2011. Web. 19 April. 2014.25


26

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press

Janicke, Sophie H., & Raney A. A. (2014). How Moral Schemas Impact

our Liking and Moral Acceptance of Antiheroes. Annual International

Communication Association Conference Press.

John, Allen St. "Why "Breaking Bad" Is The Best Show Ever And Why

That Matters" Forbes 16 Sep. 2013. Web. 19 April. 2014.

Krakowiak, K. M. (2008) When Good Characters Do Bad Things: Examining The

Effect of Moral Ambiguity on Enjoyment. The Pennsylvania State

University

Krakowiak, K. M., & Tsay, M. (2013) What makes Characters' Bad Behaviors

Acceptable? The Effects of Character Motivation and Outcome on Perceptions,

Character Liking, and Moral Disengagement. Mass Communication and

Society, 16:179-199

Ginsberg, Merle. "Breaking Bad" Star Bryan Cranston on Walter

White: "He's Well on His Way to Badass" (Q&A)" The Hollywood

Reporter 16 July. 2011. Web. 19 April. 2014.

26


27

Meslow, Scott. "On "Breaking Bad", Family Is a Motivation and a

Liability" The Atlantic 23 July. 2013. Web. 19 April. 2014.

Neuman, Clayton. "Q&A: Bryan Cranston (Walter White) - Part I&II"

AMC TV 12 Feb. 2008. Web. 19 April. 2014.

Raney, A. A. (2004). Expanding disposition theory: Reconsidering

character liking, moral evaluations, and enjoyment. Communication

Theory, 14, 348–369.

Romano, Andrew. "Breaking Bad Finale: Lost Interviews With Bryan

Cranston & Vince Gilligan" The Daily Beast 29 Sep. 2013. Web. 19

April. 2014.

Segal, David. "Art Of Darkness" Sunday Magazine The New York

Times 10 July. 2011: MM18. Print.

Shafer, Daniel M., & Raney. A. A. (2012). Exploring How We Enjoy

Antihero Narratives. Journal of Communication, 62, 1028 - 1046

Zillmann, D. (2000). Basal morality in drama appreciation. In I.

Bondebjerg (Ed.), Moving images, culture, and the mind (pp. 53–64).

Luton, UK: University of Luton Press.

27


28

"Breaking Bad": Vince Gilligan On Meth And Morals" NPR 19 Sep.

2011. Web. 19 April. 2014.

28

Examining the transformation of Walter White from a protagonist to an antagonist, in relationship...

Documents

Transcript of Examining the transformation of Walter White from a protagonist to an antagonist, in relationship...