Movies & TV

It's a debate tactic called "logic chopping" and it's fucking annoying.

Yeah I have no idea why they think that strengthens their point.

The original plan where he died sucked ass, and even Vince Gilligan admitted that and said he's glad they didn't do that.

Seriously this doesnt even contradict anything it just works overtime to justify it lol.

No more half measures, Finger

Have you seen the behind the scenes with him? He's so sweet. Just a happy kind old man. He didn't like how they made Mike mean and kept constantly pushing to humanise him.
I still love the scene of him and Werner in the desert. "The stars look beautiful tonight, I think I will go out to get a better look"

The actual problem is that residuals are based on viewer numbers, and streaming services refuse to publish those (because their stock prices would crash)

That's exactly what they're striking about. Almost all of the long-tail revenue from TV shows past their initial run has shifted away from reruns on network and cable TV (which is covered by their contract) towards streaming services (which, per their contract, they get basically nothing for). That's a total betrayal of the spirit of the agreement that content owners and the creators had - namely, that the people who worked on the shows would also share in some of the long-term profit from the show. What's funny about the community note is how it literally doesn't even contradict any of that - it's just saying "lol, suck it, we take all the profit now because of how the contracts are written".

Aaron Paul may specifically have negotiated more up-front money, at the cost of less residuals. But it's crazy that he would be getting nothing from one of the most popular shows out there, and it means that everyone else who worked on Breaking Bad who was counting on residual income is getting majorly screwed. We tend to focus on big stars who "made it", but tons of working actors, writers and others work on lots of shows, and take worse up-front pay so that they can instead be payed out from a portion of the long term profits. Those people are getting ripped off, and so they're striking to get the contracts changed.

So.... I'm not smart enough to remember the exact details about all of this...

There was the writers strike that happened around 2008 and because streaming wasn't that big of a thing, the corporations managed to keep streaming stuff separate from non streaming stuff. (Its one of the things that the current writers strike is about.) So what happened is that when AMC gave Netflix the green light to stream Breaking Bad, there was no requirement in anybody's contract to ensure that they got paid from the deal.

If Netflix isn't then they should be. If I remember correctly a big part of the SAG strike is about online streaming residuals so it is highly relevant that Netflix has paid him $0. Yes Capitalism is bad but you're literally on Hexbear, we already know that.

So we should vaguely angry at a concept, but never at specific organizations that are a part of the class structure that upholds said concept? Not even when they're involved in an ongoing labor negotiation+strike?

.

obv the point isnt "wow netflix is a bad apple but capitalism is the best system we have" it's more "netflix is bad just like every other corporation, they all exploit the working class, solidarity to the striking actors writers, etc"

I mean, for me, the whole "Its AMC that should be giving him residuals not Netflix" isnt the point. The point is that someone should be paying him residuals. And the community note here denies that he deserves residuals for streaming at all.

Up until recently Netflix was a massive, massive middleman putting a cash price between people and their ability to enjoy their cultures stories.