Is the argument being made that the opinion of employed thespians should be respected, while their unemployed brethren should be given less respect?
No. It means I don't give a shit what people think who weren't involved in the production. It also means that an actors motives may be suspect we they evaluate a property that they are no longer collecting a paycheck from.
Because the people who were
involved in the making of the film will speak their honest opinion on it?
For example, I honestly do not believe that Simon Pegg would be so glowing about JJTrek if he were just a viewer. I can't know his mind, but I just don't buy it.
How can you really say that ?
Do you know him personally ?
I can pull some of that out of the air too. I say Zoe Saldana will say STID sucks in 4 years time, Pine will say its good, Yelchen will say it was the worst mistake of his like and Urban (T'm going to see him soon) will say is was fantastic. My interpretation of other people's opinion is just as valid as yours and just as ridiculous.
Also I don't mind that anyone says any Star Trek movie could do with a bit more Gene in it.
At least Burton knew Gene and may had some sort of idea how he thought.
But Gene always went with the money. And he was always prepared to ditch old Star Trek in favour of new Star Trek. He had no problem with ditching TOS in favour of TNG canon. And I agree (reluctantly) that the living Star Trek must have priority over the old. That doesn't necessarily mean the new is better than the old.