Yo, Aaron Paul says he doesn’t “get a piece” of Breaking Bad on Netflix
The one-and-only Jesse Pinkman said, “I don’t get a piece from Netflix on Breaking Bad”
Aux News Breaking Bad
As the SAG-AFTRA strike enters its second month, we are reminded that, much like the last strike, one of the primary sticking points is residuals. Namely, streamers don’t pay them. Netflix entered showbusiness with a promise: Lots of content for very little money. Turns out, they got away with that by not paying people for their work. For example, there’s good reason to believe that Breaking Bad broke into the mainstream because it was available on Netflix’s nascent streaming service in the early 2010s. But while that might’ve been good for AMC, it wasn’t so great for the show’s stars—let alone writers and actors who weren’t compensated as well as Bryan Cranston or Aaron Paul for their services. In what amounts to being paid through exposure, Aaron Paul says he hasn’t received any residuals for his work on the series.
“I don’t get a piece from Netflix on Breaking Bad to be totally honest, and that’s insane to me,” Paul told Entertainment Tonight Canada. “Shows live forever on these streamers, and it goes through waves. I just saw the other day that Breaking Bad was trending on Netflix, and it’s just such common sense. A lot of these streamers know they have been getting away with not paying people a fair wage, and now it’s time to pony up.”
Netflix was undoubtedly integral in the success of Breaking Bad. 10 years ago, the streamer adding the series to its offerings helped increase viewership on television. Even Vince Gilligan credited them with keeping the show on the air. But it’s not like Netflix didn’t benefit from the arrangement. Back when the only originals they had to offer were Lilyhammer, House Of Cards, and that season of Arrested Development everyone hated, serialized shows like Breaking Bad were easy and popular binges. It was a fruitful relationship, considering that Netflix released the Breaking Bad spin-off film El Camino. But, as Paul points out, Netflix continues to benefit, not the people who made the thing.
Thankfully, Paul feels “very optimistic” about the strike because “we’re not going anywhere, so they gotta do something.” Again, that something is paying people.
71 Comments
To all the people I’ve seen say things like “you got paid for your work, stop complaining!,” I offer you this:
You go to work at Big Button Push factory and you push the Big Button. This creates a thing that BBP sells. They pay you a minute percentage of that sale. Easy, right?
Aaron Paul pushed the Big Button once, and now Netflix gets to sell the thing that he created over and over and over and over and over again.
Basically, imagine that the company you work for continued to make money off of your individual labor for decades, and all you got was the (in relation) pittance they originally paid you. Say your work, your direct labor, earned the company a million dollars every year, and they told you to suck it up because you got paid a dollar when you first did the work.
This is basically how comic companies treated their writers all the way from the 1930s till more recently. It’s part of why Bill Finger, co-creator of Batman, died in poverty.
So. You think he should get money continually thrown at him cuz he created a character who many many many artists would later contribute to culminating in one of our modern most iconic characters? That’s laughable.
I figure the argument is pretty simple; someone is getting paid for the success of the show on streaming media. Why shouldn’t it be the people who made it?
“What are you, a fuckin’ communist?”-Some Techbro-cum-Media Executive
Paul got $150,000 per episode. An actor nobody has ever heard of made over a million a year… Are you trying to say he didn’t get paid?
This is how it is for 95% of all workers, and will always be the case for 95% of all workers. The only reason people act like the writer/actor strike is any different, is because they’re already rich enough to afford a PR team and they’re already famous and thus have name recognition. The average WGA writer makes like 150-200k a year. So you know. Fuck em.
I get what you’re trying to say, but you DO realize that’s exactly how most jobs work, right?You get paid your salary and even if the thing you did continues to make money, you don’t see a dime of it.
Welcome to the Age of Entitlement. I guarantee you every person whining about this crap has their pronouns displayed in ALL-CAPS in as many places as possible… Probably have personal license plates with pronouns, too.
Except, not really? Because most products aren’t infinitely reusable, the way a show on a streaming service is. And it’s also the way that entertainment worked for fifty years, with residual based pay, until streaming cut that all out again.
TONS of products are infinitely reusable. Software is a good example. Salaried devs might all combine to make a product that keeps getting licensed for decades but they still just get the one fixed salary.Contractors, laborers, and architects build a building that keeps getting sold or rented for decades, but they don’t keep getting a piece of every new sale/rent.
Ok, that’s fair. See XPNDC’s comment for a better explanation than I managed.
most products aren’t infinitely reusableI’ve been computer programming most of my adult life. I’m certain that there is code I wrote decades ago that is still in use. Plenty of workers do things that last long after they’ve finished, and continue to provide value and/or profits for the company they worked for. The difference, however, is that most workers were paid a living wage while creating the product or service. Producers should either accept a residuals model for content or pay a living wage up front.
That’s a fair correction.
It sure seems like actors and writers want both. They point to long periods where they’re not regularly employed, which makes sense, but I don’t understand why they have fallow periods. Production is no longer oriented around network TV schedules. Is it possible there are too many actors and writers? With less labor available those remaining would get paid more, perhaps even enough to abandon a system that was designed around advertising revenue, which does not exist for streamers.
Are there too many actors and writers? Most certainly, that’s the nature of all the arts. There are always more people that want their chosen artistic endeavor to provide a living than society will utilize. That doesn’t mean that when producers need those artists to create content that the producers can sell that it’s fair for the artists to work for pennies on the dollar. Your question about fallow periods suggests to me that you’ve never had much contact with art creation. Producers don’t work on schedules in the same way as manufacturers. A whole slew of variables have to come together at the same time for the artists to be hired, which inevitably leads to stretches of no work. And while you think that supply and demand would correct the pay problem, without a union to ensure fair treatment of creators there is little reason to believe that the producers would offer any more of the proceeds to them. This is why AI restrictions is such a sticking point.
I’m not sure what you mean by “pennies on the dollar”. If the artists are paid every dollar of profit a consumer pays for a product then there’s no money for anyone else. Employees have to make their employer more than their pay for the business to be profitable. Unless you own the business everyone works for pennies on the dollar. The question is how many and are you owed more in the future?You’re right about not having experience with art creation. I’ve been in construction my whole career. It also involves a number of variables that have to happen for everything to be on schedule. Often it’s not. When that happens I find something else to do and I don’t expect my last project to support me until whatever delay is resolved. Are commercials and other short works not the equivalent of the small jobs that I fill my days with when schedules change?I understand that there will always be people who want to live out their dreams. But is the union obligated to admit anyone who can sell a story? I know it’s not a word people like but shouldn’t there be some level of gatekeeping? It seems like a union that allows it’s membership to rise above the available amount of work is not doing it’s job properly.
I was using pennies on the dollar as a way to express how little of the proceeds from a successful show accrue to the writers and actors, with the exception of the tiny few at the top of their fields. Not all shows are hit big, but those that do, and run endlessly in syndication, make a lot of money. Enough of those proceeds need to go to all of the artists involved for them to live on until they can get the next gig. And that’s the difference between arts and most other work. It’s a constant scramble looking for the next paying gig, a scramble that can preclude doing “something else” to fill in. Commercials, etc., can’t be slotted in when you have little control over the work you get. This is why having residuals rolling in allows the artists to survive during that scramble.As to unions, I don’t know the rules for joining the WGA, but SAG-AFTRA has strict rules about joining, requiring a certain amount of paid work in order to get in. It’s still the case, however, that there are more people chasing the work available than there are jobs. I don’t think that trade unions in construction artificially limit membership based on jobs available. There are qualifications, and those requirements mean that not anyone can just join the plumbers’ union, but I don’t think that there’s a quota.
See now I thought residuals were a way to reward the most profitable writers and actors, not as a way to keep people afloat after the job is done. Similar to profit sharing or a commission for salespeople. I imagined it just worked as a support system in practice. What was the original intention of the system? If it was supposed to be a form of unemployment insurance maybe it would make more sense if a portion (or the entirety) of everyone’s residuals were put into a union administered fund to provide any members between jobs with a baseline income, perhaps graduated by whatever ranks they may have.I think part of my confusion is that these occupations seem to operate in a hybrid space between employees and independent contractors that is unusual in most professions. Usually the distinction is pretty clear cut. Most independent professionals accept that slow periods are a cost of doing business and price their services accordingly rather than requesting payments over time based on the use of their product. I’ve never considered laying flooring at a reduced rate in return for an annual licensing fee or a fraction of a percent of a transaction when a building is sold or a lease is signed. Employees, especially the salaried kind, do have different expectations. Which category do most actors and writers fall into?As far as scheduling difficulties being different than other industries I suppose I’ll have to take your word for it as I didn’t see any examples, let alone any unique to the entertainment industry. Perhaps it’s just a failure of imagination on my part. Clearly it has to be a bigger issue for actors than writers though. One job has to take place on a set and the other can theoretically be done anywhere.As to union membership I don’t live in an area where those exist so I’m not sure how construction unions work as far as membership. They do have examinations that are supposed to ensure quality work but since good entertainment is a lot more subjective than good plumbing I don’t imagine there’s an equivalent test for writers or actors. I didn’t watch the Bill Maher clip where he said that “Writers aren’t owed a living” because I find him annoying as hell but I did wonder if he meant that writers don’t deserve a living wage or that not everyone who wants to be a writer professionally deserves to be successful. As someone with a team of people doing their damnedest to make him sound funny I would guess the latter. But if his next monologue is worse than usual it was the former.
See now I thought residuals were a way to reward the most profitable writers and actors, not as a way to keep people afloat after the job is done. Similar to profit sharing or a commission for salespeople. I imagined it just worked as a support system in practice. What was the original intention of the system? If it was supposed to be a form of unemployment insurance maybe it would make more sense if a portion (or the entirety) of everyone’s residuals were put into a union administered fund to provide any members between jobs with a baseline income, perhaps graduated by whatever ranks they may have.I think part of my confusion is that these occupations seem to operate in a hybrid space between employees and independent contractors that is unusual in most professions. Usually the distinction is pretty clear cut. Most independent professionals accept that slow periods are a cost of doing business and price their services accordingly rather than requesting payments over time based on the use of their product. I’ve never considered laying flooring at a reduced rate in return for an annual licensing fee or a fraction of a percent of a transaction when a building is sold or a lease is signed. Employees, especially the salaried kind, do have different expectations. Which category do most actors and writers fall into?As far as scheduling difficulties being different than other industries I suppose I’ll have to take your word for it as I didn’t see any examples, let alone any unique to the entertainment industry. Perhaps it’s just a failure of imagination on my part. Clearly it has to be a bigger issue for actors than writers though. One job has to take place on a set and the other can theoretically be done anywhere.As to union membership I don’t live in an area where those exist so I’m not sure how construction unions work as far as membership. They do have examinations that are supposed to ensure quality work but since good entertainment is a lot more subjective than good plumbing I don’t imagine there’s an equivalent test for writers or actors. I didn’t watch the Bill Maher clip where he said that “Writers aren’t owed a living” because I find him annoying as hell but I did wonder if he meant that writers don’t deserve a living wage or that not everyone who wants to be a writer professionally deserves to be successful. As someone with a team of people doing their damnedest to make him sound funny I would guess the latter. But if his next monologue is worse than usual it was the former.
Yes, residuals are a special unique facet of the tv and movie industry. I’m just pointing out that it *is* rare and unique and most jobs don’t work that way.So it’s a bit weird to build an analogy about the reader imagining themselves not getting residuals, when the mast majority of readers won’t. It’s like saying “imagine a world where the sky is blue and the sun rises in the East, how crazy would that be?”
People seem to not realize how unique their own jobs are. For example in academia we are lamenting how many institutions are either getting rid of tenure entirely or working around it by increasing the number of non-tenure track faculty with no job security when tenured people retire. While this is certainly bad for us, we often sound a little tone deaf when complaining about it because in almost no other field does this benefit exist.
Interesting that you should mention that, because that is also why unionism can never lead to socialism – unions inevitably make workers see their particular employment unit as special and deserving of better-than-average treatment, rather than building solidarity with the working class as a whole.
“Because most products aren’t infinitely reusable”
The entire software industry would like a word.
Yes, it’s almost as if one class thrives on exploiting another class’ labour or something
This is also bad.
False. Most of the things produced by normal people don’t have extended utility the same way that entertainment does.
Let’s take the most prosaic of things. A house. Right. It’s a simple thing that people get paid wages to build. And, depending on the house, it can last quite a while. Decades at the very least, up to centuries for some residences. Heck, I’m sure there are buildings in Rome or Beijing ot elsewhere that have been occupied for millenia.But the guy who laid the foundation for the Empire State Building isn’t collecting a percentage of the rent every year. Even though the building exists and is very much in use and making profit for someone.The vast, vast majority of jobs are like that. You make or help make a thing. It generates income for decades or even centuries for other people. You don’t see a dime of that income. That’s just how it is.
Some of the problem here is labor valuation. Some of it is the awfulness of passive income, which is how these executives make money but also how property ownership makes money. Aside from paying for maintenance, what do those fuckers actually DO to earn the rent they get? And some of it is the status quo fuckery of capitalism, which you beautifully demonstrate with “That’s just how it is.” Well maybe “how it is” is fucked and needs to change? Maybe the guy who laid the foundation for the Empire State building *should* collect a percentage of the rent. But that’s not gonna happen if people like you keep “That’s just how it is”-ing.
Lol.The guy collecting the rent gets to collect rent because he paid to build the building. Or he bought the building from the guy who paid to build it. That investment needs to be recouped. If it isn’t then the building goes bankrupt and you get no more buildings.So the way it works, for everyone, is that one guy pays 5 guys 50k each to build a house. Then he either sells that house for 350k and pockets the profit, or he rents the house out for 1k a month for the next 30 years. In either case, while he’s running around trying to recoup his costs, the 5 guys just go build another house and get paid for that other house. Everyone gets paid. Some people get paid instantly as they work, some wait to get paid after a year or two when the house sells, some get paid slowly over decades.
Sweet capitalismsplaining.You’re part of the problem.
Damn right!
I’m totally fine with the architects, engineers, and contractors who make buildings getting a taste every time said building is sold or rented.
That’s certainly a take.Personally I’m glad that the guy who put in my kitchen counters aren’t going to come asking for a taste in a decade or so if I decide to get a new place and sell the old one or rent it out. I think the vast majority of people are also happier not getting wallet inspected years or decades after buying stuff.
No one’s wallet need be inspected. When the property is purchased or rented the amount spent simply needs to be disclosed and the proper percentage sent to the people owed a cut. The buyer’s real estate agent or the renter’s property manager would likely be the one to get the checks mailed out.
Sure, but the question is: should they?
“you DO realize that’s exactly how most jobs work, right”Most jobs don’t realize recurring future revenue from current work. Also, most jobs don’t involve selling the same output of the employee’s labor more than once.
It’s as if Marxists’ greed and laziness rules over any actual brain function…Let’s say along with a bunch of other people, you help build a house for a cool $225,000 (Cranston) or $150,000 (Paul). As long as the person that hired you paid you for your services, you’ve done your job and got paid very well for it. If you don’t like what you’re being paid, get a job where you’re happy with the wages you agreed with. And if you work at BigButtonStore and think the CEOs hand out commission or stock shares like candy, you probably haven’t had an adult job yet. Going to be time to put your big boy pants soon, kiddo. Sounds like you’re gonna need a helmet out there!In other terms: nobody is obligated to wipe your ass for you outside of the person that raised you when you were a toddler.
This is a bad way of describing it because that’s still how everything works in life except for actors. When you’re a software engineer for a company and write software, you get paid a salary once even if that piece of software keeps getting used by people for 30 years afterward.
By your analogy, Big Button employee should get paid every time someone uses the item he produced.The issue here is that the economics shifted quickly and drastically since the last contract, so people who historically would get residuals aren’t participating in the usual revenue streams. I’m sure the streamers don’t want to pay any more than they have to, but even they have to acknowledge they’ve been benefiting from a major gap in the system for years now.
By your analogy, Big Button employee should get paid every time someone uses the item he produced.I don’t know about you, but I don’t buy a new TV every time I sit down to watch something.
Also, to the grey lamenting that software engineers are similarly abused, let me give my perspective on that after spending 20 years as a software engineer:
I didn’t have to apply for my job every time I took on a new project. I wasn’t out there hustling every day to convince a company that I could code for a day as a guest programmer on a long-running project. I also wasn’t part of a union that could fight to get me better wages and accommodations.
His fault for picking the one-time payout over residuals.
Is he just talking the original BB series? Because I wonder why he would agree to do El Camino (or appear in BCS) if he wasn’t happy with his deal. It would seem like those would be a good opportunity to get some money back from Netflix.
Because it wasn’t a situation unique to his contract. He can’t change how residuals work for the whole industry.No other streamer was/is offering residuals. His choice was either to take a creatively fulfilling job with decent up front pay but no residuals for Netflix, or… any other job which also wouldn’t have residuals.That’s the beauty of Unions. He can’t change the system on his own, but together they can.
You didn’t read his question, apparently. ..Why did Aaron agree to do El Camino if he wasn’t happy working with Netflix? Did they hold him for ransom? Did he already spend the millions of dollars he agreed to work for?The union had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING with him making El Camino. He chose to act in it because Vince Gilligan asked him to. If he wasn’t happy with how much he was going to be paid for El Camino, he should have asked for more money.
That was sort of my point though. Aaron Paul wasn’t really famous when BB started. But by the time he made El Camino he was pretty well know. And by that time he would have known how popular BB was on Netflix and how he wasn’t making anything off of it. So I would think he could have used that information as a way to bargain for more money before agree to do El Camino.
He may have used that to bargain for more money — for El Camino. I doubt he would have been able renegotiate the entire Breaking Bad package on his own, though.
He could have negotiated a big up front fee, but Netflix wouldn’t pay him residuals. They won’t pay anyone* residuals. Not Paul, not The Rock, not the Russos. No one. And that’s what the strikes about. Films, TV, books etc have a long standing tradition that if the creation continues to make money after the initial run, the creatives are directly financially rewarded. It’s part of what makes an intrinsically unpredictable industries sustainable. Streaming has effectively eliminated this by a loophole whereby all streaming content was initially “promotional”. And it means that lots of actors, writers and directors who previously had viable careers don’t any more. All for a rounding error on the quarterly statement.Tho some speculate it’s because the transparency required would expose them as liars.*Except in a couple of European countries where it’s a legal requirement.
With absolutely no facts to back this up and huge dose of “what would I know?!”, I would imagine the likelihood with El Camino and BCS was a desire to work with the team he loved, on a character he appreciated along with it being a paid job. Besides his quotes above sound almost like a fresh concern.It is conceivable that many actors, especially those lucky enough to have had a significant career, felt unable to speak up about the lack of residuals because of the swiftness of the streaming boom and the nature of it being a brand new frontier. After all, to my understanding, Scarlett Johansson (an A-List actor with likely a highly regarded agent) only fought her court case with Disney from the angle of “moving this to streaming means I dont get my theatrical bonus” when the argument is right there that streaming is treated as a very uneconomical platform for actors, writers, and many supporting players in the entertainment industry.
I don’t think Aaron Paul is out there picketing because he is personally poor. He was well paid for the later seasons of BrBa, made money in residuals from AMC reruns, and parlayed the Jesse role into a pretty successful career as a working actor. I don’t think he’s telling this story because he hates Netflix and everyone associated with BrBa for selling him out.It’s just that he’s a household name who everyone probably assumes is just rolling around in sweet residual money given that millions continue to watch and rewatch his work in BrBa 10 years after the show aired. And the fact that he doesn’t see a dime from all those views is pretty shocking. Why does Jerry Seinfeld still get a check every time someone watches an old episode of his, but Aaron Paul doesn’t? And if someone as famous and successful as Paul isn’t seeing any residual money, that means a lot of less visible actors who have appeared in very successful streaming shows aren’t seeing any money either. And a lot of those actors never saw a large initial payday before filming.
This isn’t surprising. Back in the 20th Century shows like The Brady Bunch, Gilligan’s Island, and what not were successful. Before streaming, studios wanted their shows to last long enough for syndication. Back then it was pretty much the same story. A popular show ran a few seasons, got cancelled, but was still hit as reruns through syndication. Most actors and writers didn’t get any residuals for that. The best example was the cast of Gilligan’s Island. Things started to slowly change in the 80’s, and then in the 90’s you hear about how much the actors and showrunners on shows such as Friends, Frasier, Seinfeld, The Simpsons and more were set for life. But Studios and producers didn’t make it easy to reach that point. By the time there were changes, it became policy for anything new but didn’t do much on for past shows already in syndication. But producers and studios will always look for a way to pocket in more cash and sharing very little of it. Here we are today.So it wouldn’t surprise me if history will repeat itself. The strike will go on longer, and the changes will happen very slowly. But the results will most likely be similar as in before. Any new and current content will probably go by the new policies for residuals starting only at that point. I doubt if there will be any residuals paybacks that were lost to the actors and writers before the changes to the rules. Aaron Paul will eventually get residuals starting in 2024. But I doubt they’re going to pay back the residuals to him, Bryan Cranston, or any writers starting back from 2010.
Honestly, I doubt he’ll see residuals for BB, ever. As you said, the contract is what the contract is. New union rules don’t change contracts on completed work.
You know what, he’s got enough of optimism to cover himself. I’ll just side with you. He’s boned.
Agreed. What’s done is done – what they’re battling for now is participation in streaming residuals going forward.
I don’t side with Aaron Paul on this. Why does he think he should be continually paid for decades…? That doesn’t make sense.
Because that’s how TV works? Every time a show is broadcast on regular television, residuals are paid to actors (and others). Why do streaming services get to opt out?
Crazy question: does the inventor of the chair get residuals every time someone sits down? No? I didn’t think so.
The chair was invented before patents, copyrights, or trademarks were invented, and chairs have been around long enough that the concept of “chair” is in the public domain. However, there are people who invent/design new chairs and they can and do get a cut – usually in the form of a fee paid by the manufacturer – when their chairs are sold. This is as it should be.
I call bullshit.It helps if you know how this actually works.
Netflix may not pay “residuals”, but they do pay a “license fee” to Sony Pictures Television, who then passes out residuals to those who get them.
If he hasn’t made any money off BB being on Netflix he needs to talk to a lawyer.
Genuine question – for licensed content, shouldn’t it be whoever owns the right to the show that is paying the actors residuals from whatever licensing fees they collect from Netflix or Hulu or whoever? I don’t really understand the concept of Netflix themselves paying actors they never hired for shows they bought temporary rights for.
Yes it should. I think that’s the implication here, but the article is unclear about it.
I mean, I feel like that’s just details. Either Netflix should be paying residuals for the shows, OR they should be paying a large enough licensing fee for the original studio to pay residuals. Either way would compensate the original creators and workers who made the thing, but right now neither of those things is happening, and both Netflix and the the studios financially benefit from the “loophole” arrangement.I guess in some sense we say Netflix should be responsible for calculating residuals since they’re the ones that know how many views a particular show or episode is getting; I don’t think they reveal that information to the original studio.
Saying Netflix should pay artificially more than something is worth makes no sense to me. Netflix should pay whatever the fair market rate for the shows are to the producers. For popular shows like The Office, we know that can get into the nine-figures. And then the producers of the show that get that money should distribute it based on some agreed upon %.
People who didn’t like s4 of Arrested Development are weak
I don’t see how streamers make enough money to pay residuals. For it to work, they’d need to either charge per episode/movie or (more likely) start advertising and become exactly like networks.
they’re gonna keep raising prices either way and many have already implemented advertising tiers.
All these strikes occurring among disassociated industries is definitely a harbinger of what’s to come. The entertainment industry has rarely coalesced around ‘equal pay’ to the degree it is doing now and why?- because even folks in the entertainment industry who have been scared to lose their jobs instantly (via strike) are willing to do so.
The streamers don’t want anyone to notice that the legacy shows are the core of almost all of their platforms. Legacy shows with 100-plus episodes drive most of the month to month “stickiness” in subscriber numbers. Quick binges don’t — those subscribers are essentially short-lived spikes in viewer numbers. The truth is, people wanting to just be able to throw on whatever episode of The Office or Gilmore Girls any time they want are the most loyal customers. It’s criminal that those creators and actors get little to nothing for undergirding this entire era of film and TV.
Was he paid when AMC originally licensed the show to Netflix and does he get a check every time that deal is renewed? Does anyone have any idea what the value of a viewership option is vis a vis subscription revenue, retention and growth?Are residuals a viable way of paying actors and writers today when they were invented to work with an advertising model rather than a subscription driven one?Are the relatively low wages and frequent work interruptions a symptom of an oversupply of labor in the entertainment industry? Less actors and writers theoretically means more money and less downtime for those that make the cut, but would that work in practice?Has the existence of non-Hollywood platforms like YouTube, Tik-Tok and Twitch reduced the leverage of the actors and writers by providing other entertainment options? If so, have the demise of network TV seasonality and the massive backlog of streaming options had an effect as well?Is using the word “creative” as a noun as insufferable as I think it is?So many questions that the AV Club won’t ask, let alone attempt to answer.
You get nothing!