That's fine, maybe as it's an issue that's a bit more personal to me is why I've gone off on one a bit about it.
If Pine does accept less money, then great, more power to him, but at least it will be his choice to do so.
Star Trek 4 Hits A Snag
- Thread starter Doc Mugatu
- Start date
That's fine, maybe as it's an issue that's a bit more personal to me is why I've gone off on one a bit about it.
If Pine does accept less money, then great, more power to him, but at least it will be his choice to do so.
762 days without Star Trek 4.
Purposefully delayed turning off the microwave so somebody would shout "Do it do it do it!"
Purposefully delayed turning off the microwave so somebody would shout "Do it do it do it!"
I'm glad there's room for both of us here. To you the Kelvin movies and (presumably) Discovery are Star Trek; fine. To me they're "Star Trek" in name only; of course I'm probably twice your age.
The Volkswagen New Beetle (neue Käfer) can serve as an analogy. New Beetles are simply Beetle-shaped cars (front- versus rear-wheel-drive; engine in front, not back; water- not air-cooled; etc.). The modern Beetle is a Golf with a different set of clothes. And although they sold well when introduced 20 years ago, they're less popular every year, despite the introduction of a second-generation design 7 years ago, to the point where a third generation is reported by multiple sources as very unlikely.
I am not quite trying to say that sitting down to watch a 1960s Star Trek episode is like getting behind the wheel of a 1968 VW Beetle. However, enthusiasts of classic cars continue to derive enjoyment from them as they are, despite their flaws, and likewise for me when I have an old episode on the TV while doing some work on the computer.
I disagree, the amount of $ is irrelevant in a business sense. You sign a contract to pay someone for something at a certain amount and then come back later and change your mind, it's not greed for that person to disagree to the change. And it amuses me that you speak as if you know Chris Pine's finances. Unless you've been a popular actor for a living you can't really say what his expenses are or how much he takes home. Which is why I disagree with you overall, you seem to think that just because someone makes more money they should be willing to take less for goods/services they provide. I'm guessing that's what Smellmet meant when he said that's not the way the world works. And it isn't.
Not if you claim - "Pine is asking for more money..." as you stated earlier. Mr. Pine is asking Paramount HONOR the contract he and they entered into when Star Trek (1)4 was greenlit in 2016.
The amount is irrelevant in principle in a vacuum, but it's not in actual application. I do know of Chris Pine's finances if reporting of his 20 mil net worth are accurate. If he can't make that work, he's screwing up. At no point did I say he should take less, but I did say he was greedy if he wasn't willing to, IF HE ENJOYS THE WORK.
If he hates playing Kirk, then no amount of agreed to compensation should make any difference. He should turn it down no matter how much money they throw at him because he's seemingly set for life. To do something you hate in order to obtain more of what you don't need is insanity. If he likes playing Kirk but is trying to get more money than he'll ever need, that fits squarely with my definition of greed.
Last edited:
I don't think greed is good. At the same time, I believe a contract is a contract.
I'm 47, and enjoyed the Abrams films... Discovery not so much. They both feel like Star Trek made for modern audiences. Which is what they are. Taking the base concept and modernizing it.
They won't be for everyone. Nothing ever is.
Not everyone wants to drive a '68 Beetle. I've got three kids: one will only watch TOS, one will only watch TNG and one is only interested in going to see the Abrams films.
Then you are perhaps looking at the situation on principle and not on a nuanced situation. Humans like to apply situations like this to themselves and say "I wouldn't want to be treated this way", but I suspect most people here aren't insanely wealthy. It's a false equivalency that is used every time the subject of greed is brought forth.
What nuance? Pine and Paramount negotiated a contract. Pine didn't come back looking for more money based on the success of Wonder Woman, he is just wanting to stick to the contract that was negotiated. I honestly don't see him "having a lot of money" as being relevant to the situation.
The financing partners involved in the film also have a lot of money (likely many times more than Pine will ever see in his lifetime). Should he renege on the deal because they have more money than he does?
Except Chris Pine is a 'Star' in some demand at the moment, so from a purely business standpoint, it could affect his ability to negotiate top dollar contacts (which you or I would also want if such were required for our professions); if he acquiesces to a studio request to set aside a properly signed and negotiated contract because suddenly the studio isn't confident the film will do as big in the box office as they originally believed.
The Studio screwed up here, not Mr. Pine.
I'm actually 44 years old. I've seen all the episodes of trek, I've just got little desire to sit through it all again. Maybe one day I will but I just don't have the time, hence my interest in the movie side of things which require less commitment.
I'm no massive fan of discovery, I thought it was decent enough, my viewpoint is I'm happy to see it's existence because it's new, that's all. Same goes for the kelvin movies, which I am a massive fan of.
As I mentioned before, ALL parties involved are greedy people from my view. Paramount, Pine, Hemsworth, financing partners. All of them. It's simply easier for Pine and Hemsworth to work out a deal because they only have to answer to themselves and perhaps the folks representing them. Paramount has to answer to shareholders, investors, partners, etc, and it's not as easy for them to make a deal.
If you don't see him having a lot of money as relevant, then we just fundamentally disagree and should leave it there. Perhaps you are a capitalist and believe anyone should earn whatever they can/want. I do not.
You are invoking the false equivalency I just mentioned in my previous post. You cannot compare the situation of a wealthy person to you or I having a working class business deal in good faith. It's like someone saying "Yeah, well I got a paper cut" after another just said "I was stabbed 20 times in my abdomen." They are not even comparable. I reiterate, I am not stating that any party SHOULD do anything. I am merely stating they are greedy.
Last edited:
How would you like if someone judged whether or not you deserved something you agreed to because they thought you had too much? It is a bullshit attitude to have.
If I had multiple lifetimes of money I would agree with them wholeheartedly. Someone give me 5 million and I'll prove it.
Why should how much money you have matter? Why can't your employer come and take some money back from you tomorrow because they think you have too much because you might drive a nice car?
You're trying to logically argue why I shouldn't think Pine's greedy. This cannot be done because thinking someone is greedy is an opinion and nothing more. Chris Pine is not, and cannot be, objectively greedy. It's all matters of degrees based on personal belief.
Also, please read this and stop using yourself, me, or any other working class person as a frame of comparison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Me saying Pine is greedy can be seen as an insult I suppose. But I would say that 1.) Pine doesn't care about my opinion anyway, and B.) He'll never read this to be insulted.
Nope. I just don't think Pine's personal money/assets should be up for your judgement. Any more than yours are my business.
It is a simple question of right and wrong: Paramount and Pine entered into a contract. Both sides should abide by that contract.
Similar threads
