Star Trek 4 Hits A Snag

This is not unexpected. Chris PIne is becoming a more profitable actor.

 

Cheap shot from Paramount.

I'd care if I had any fondness for the movies, but I dont. Kirk and Dad sounded particularly bad.

Plenty of Trek coming on TV. Draw a line under the JJverse and move along...

 

Why does the fourth film have to be a time travel story because TOS' 4th film was? This is so annoying with new Hollywood; they lack a creative spark.

CBS nor Paramount knows what to do with what they have. Now they're hedging their bets on an 81 year old man to save Star Trek. Sad.

 

FTFY.

Since when should any actor be expected to do such a thing? If the studio couldn't afford it, they shouldn't have agreed to pay it in the first place.

 

I believe I have a solution! Remove one of the lame CGI set pieces and use the money to pay Pine and Hemsworth their market value!

I think all the Kelvin flicks could be improved with ten minutes less action and ten minutes more story (at least).

Or, scrap the whole project and enlist Taika Waititi to make the next Trek be a tongue-in-cheek, Monty Python-esque romp & hire Goldbum.

 

But the strangest anomaly... is the human heart.

 

Yes, that's more correct. that's what I meant, but from my wording it may seem like I was putting all the blame on the actors.

(editing the original text of a comment you are replying to while using the quote code isn't a good idea, though. It gets confusing as you are altering the text of the message you are replying to instead of correctly adding your own reply below it. I mean, anyone looking for a straw man argument could easily change someone's reply adding insults directed at themselves that weren't there lol. If you want to be cute with the 'corrected for you' thing I'd rather just use the simple quotation marks " ," thus add your 'correction' there, in your own message)

Let make this clear: it's always the studio's fault.

However, I was referring to other productions where there are accounts on lead actors accepting a cut to their paycheck when the studio tells them that other cast members would get much less or get fired to allow them to get more. If they are on low budget as it seems, paramount might pull that excuse.

In iron man, they recasted Tony's friend because Robert D jr wanted a raise and it basically ate the budget for other actors.
I just hope trek won't end up being like that too.
Pine is needed, but I surely don't need Kirk's dad back at any cost, especially not if having him means the regulars are sacrificed or get the short end of the stick.

 

Fair enough. I wouldn't normally do it anywhere else, either, but it's kind of a tongue-in cheek tradition on this forum, so, when in Rome...

I thought Rhodes was recast because the people in charge of MS never wanted Terrance Howard in the first place. The casting was forced through by, uh, names are escaping me at the moment, but that former executive who was obsessed with making the Inhumans even though no-one else wanted to and refused to allow them to have female villains. The one who got shuffled off to the tv division because no one could work with him. Cheadle was actually the first choice, unless I'm misremembering.

Also, as I understood it, Howard wasn't very easy to work with on the set, either.

 

I had a feeling that as time passed they'd want to move onto bigger things, I'm surprised most of the others are game to come back.

 

I doubt the others will come back if Pine doesn't. It's a shame we might never see again Quinto as Spock, Saldana as Uhura, Urban as Bones and Cho as Sulu.

On the bright side, it'll be a relief to never see Pegg as Scotty again.

 

Don't be ridiculous - the more CG, the more people like it. Actors are unnecessary...

Whilst I only really like Quinto and (particularly) Urban, I more than agree about Pegg !

 

Why Hemsworth? All his non Marvel movies bomb.

 

STRONGLY disagree. Polling a potential audience is the opposite of what any creative endeavour should do—whether literature, film, the fine arts, music, or any other.

True. Usually, though, such gestures are in support of special projects from indie producers or a film genre that struggles to get funding. Trek does not fit the profile and neither actor involved in the case should feel “guilted” into thinking otherwise.

A frequent complaint about him. He and Ed Norton (both quite talented) should form a club.

 

I get where you're coming from, but how about if that polling resulted in a request for a more character/plot driven movie less reliant on tedious CG extravaganza's and dumb action adventure shenanigans.

As is actually quite likely if they poll Trek fans...

 

Whats going on?
Just when we thought Stat Trek 4 might have a chance of happening.

Whats this about going forward in a Picard series? Is that seriously happening?

 

According to the Hollywood Reporter, both Chris Pine and Chris Hemsworth are bolting Star Trek 4 due to money.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/h...chris-pine-chris-hemsworth-talks-fall-1133802

Given that Star Trek put Pine on the map, I think that's terrible. It's not like Pine wouldn't be making 7 figures for this role.

That's greed. But it's his choice.

I think that Pine did not make Kirk iconic. Pine did not make Star Trek iconic. Pine only got the role because the guy who did make Star Trek and Kirk iconic, aged out of the part.

So I say recast.

I wouldn't even bat an eye as long as they make a good choice.

 

Money in Hollywood isn't just the payday, it's about prestige and standing. It's a measure of your pulling power and popularity.

Besides, if Paramount are going back on their word, who is the bad guy here ? And who gets that cash if the actor doesn't ? Paramount do, not good causes !

I'm not exactly concerned that there might not be any more iffy movies - there's plenty of Trek coming on TV, but, ridiculously well paid as they might be, I can't say I blame Pine and Hemsworth.

 

Shatner and Stewart fighting the borg. and klingons. and khan.
box office = $1b

 

Even if the studio is wrong, the bottom line is that the man is getting 7 figures. I can't be sympathetic to that, and unlike other movies, Star Trek is NOT a billion dollar a movie franchise. You can thank Abrams for that, but it's still true. Do you give the budget to one actor? Or two?

How do they make a profit with too much going to salary?

Ultimately, Pine can work for less. As for status, how many fans care about status?

Make the movie. Or recast. I want to see a good Kirk story. If Pine can't play Kirk, someone else can.

 

Status is the actors worth going forward. A measure of their career and value to a studio. Nothing to do with making him look important to the fans.

Personally, I'd rather there weren't any more films - I don't like them, but it's up to Paramount to make this work. I suspect negotiations will restart in the near future, Paramount won't be so cheap and they'll reach an agreement.