Better Call Saul co-creator Vince Gilligan reveals how the show's plans for both Chuck and Howard were originally very different. In setting itself apart from its predecessor, the Breaking Bad spinoff began by steeping its protagonist Jimmy McGill (Bob Odenkirk) into the legal world, and introduced a few faces for him to interact with: Kim Wexler (Rhea Seehorn); Howard Hamlin (Patrick Fabian); and Charles "Chuck" McGill (Michael McKean).

Now that the Better Call Saul series finale has aired, fans are well-versed in what became of those characters. But the spinoff wasn't always so set in stone. Gilligan, who co-created the show with Peter Gould, has explained that Kim wasn't initially envisioned as being such a central part of the story. That changed when the creative team saw Seehorn's performance and realized she could help to create a rich, unique character. This is similar to how Jesse was supposed to be killed off at the end of Breaking Bad season 1, though he was kept alive in part due to the strength of Aaron Paul's portrayal.

Related: Better Call Saul: Why Mike Initially Wanted To Go Back To 2001

Now, In an interview with The New Yorker, Gilligan reveals that the plans for Chuck and Howard in Better Call Saul were just as flexible. He says that, at first, Howard was envisioned as "the bad guy," while Chuck would be largely supportive of his younger brother Jimmy. Over time, that changed as the siblings grew further apart. Gilligan explains why that shift happened in the quote below:

When I look back at the first two episodes of “Better Call Saul,” I realize we didn’t know that much about Jimmy McGill. And we knew even less about his brother Charles McGill and his boss Howard Hamlin. Peter and I and the writers were convinced that Howard Hamlin was going to be the bad guy. And we were convinced that Chuck was going to be this Mycroft Holmes [Sherlock Holmes’s older brother] kind of character who was emotionally damaged but very supportive. That was the original plan.

Then it began to morph, because we had the benefit of all that time in the writers’ room and, even more important, the benefit of watching these actors play these roles. So we came to realize, Wouldn’t it be more interesting if Howard—who looks like the bad guy because he’s so polished and handsome and seems to be the king of the world—is not as bad as he appears? And what if Chuck isn’t as supportive of Jimmy as we first think he is? How might he really feel about his younger brother, a correspondence-school lawyer? He’s neither the good guy nor the bad guy in the final estimation, but he’s definitely not in his brother’s corner. When we realized that, the show got so much more interesting.

There was an edge to the way Michael McKean was playing Chuck McGill that we found tremendously interesting and fun to watch. It led us to realize that maybe there’s more to this character than just a brilliant attorney who thinks he’s allergic to electricity.

Jimmy and Chuck arguing in Better Call Saul

That shift, from making Howard seem like the villain to revealing Chuck's animosity, is one of the great early tricks that Better Call Saul pulls. It turns out, roughly halfway through the series, that Howard has always been fond of Jimmy. He sees that the younger McGill is skilled as a lawyer, but he pretends to dislike him and devalue him in order to mask the fact that it's Chuck who is resentful of his brother. When the truth finally comes out, it's as devastating for the viewer as it is for Jimmy, and it sets the show down the dark path that ultimately leads to Breaking Bad.

As a prequel, of course, the series had to go down that path one way or another. But these remarks reinforce, as the Breaking Bad universe has throughout its run, how it can be useful to demonstrate flexibility and not stick to initial ideas and narrative arcs once better alternatives become clear. The animosity between the McGill brothers, and the gradual humanization of Howard, made for some of the absolute best Better Call Saul scenes, proving that the writers made the right call in abandoning their initial inclinations.

Source: The New Yorker