Star Trek 4 Hits A Snag

[johnjm22]

He has a contract and a deal in place which Paramount isn't honoring. He's not asking for more money, he's asking for the deal that both sides agreed to before Beyond was released.

It's Paramount that's reneging on the deal.

I doubt he ever signed an actual contract with Paramount for ST4. What's most likely is that they agreed to a deal in principle, or signed a deal memo. That's not the same as an actual contract.

There's nothing wrong with Paramount asking to renegotiate for a lower amount, just as there'd be nothing wrong with Pine asking to renegotiate for a higher amount.

I think they'll eventually work it out. There's lots of ways to structure a deal.

 

[JKM]

People don't go watch movies just because a certain actor is on the poster. This includes Kirk and Thor too. These guys aren't THAT big.

Have to disagree with that, because yes people do. I'm one of them. If Pine is in it, 9 out of 10 I'll watch it, unless its a type of movie I just don't enjoy. I could care less about Hemsworth, however. I've never seen him in something that I've thought 'damn he can act' before, though I've probably thought 'damn he can't act' a time or two. I just think he's a pretty face, to some people.

 

[JKM]

I doubt he ever signed an actual contract with Paramount for ST4. What's most likely is that they agreed to a deal in principle, or signed a deal memo. That's not the same as an actual contract.

There's nothing wrong with Paramount asking to renegotiate for a lower amount, just as there'd be nothing wrong with Pine asking to renegotiate for a higher amount.

I think they'll eventually work it out. There's lots of ways to structure a deal.

Pretty sure he did, I linked an article back on Page 31 that discussed how in order for him to even get a pay raise for Beyond, he had to sign the contract for ST4. This was before they filmed Beyond. Probably at the same stage we are in now for ST4. This is the quote from the article. I imagine he signed the same sort of contract they had in place that they mention in the first paragraph below. https://movieweb.com/star-trek-4-cast-chris-pine-zachary-quinto/

"Paramount only wanted to give its stars the standard raise as listed in their initial contracts from way back in 2007. Under California law, a personal services contract cannot bind someone for more than 7 years. In 2014, the old deals became invalid. While Paramount tried to dispute this, neither side wanted to go to court. And complicating the matter was the fact that some of the cast had risen in their star power considerably since 2009. Paramount agreed to a combination of hefty raises and better performance bonuses. At this time, the studio has no comment.

Though, Chris Pine appears to be the biggest winner, as the leader of the USS Enterprise. He only earned $600,000 for his 2009 performance. Now, he is looking to net a cool $6 million for this currently-shooting sequel. In 2013, he only got $1.5 million for Star Trek Into Darkness, and was supposed to get $3 million for Star Trek Beyond. Star Trek 4 is actually a result of these raises. One condition for the pay bump was that both Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto return for another movie, insuring that the iconic duo of Kirk and Spock remain in tact."​

 

[Tai]

6 million isn't bank breaking.

 

[F. King Daniel]

6 million isn't bank breaking.

I suspect it will be a similar bump up for Star Trek 4. 600k, 1.3m, 6m and...?

 

[BillJ]

I suspect it will be a similar bump up for Star Trek 4. 600k, 1.3m, 6m and...?

Even $12 million isn't breaking the bank. Especially if the story hinges on Kirk.

 

[Malaika]

Have to disagree with that, because yes people do. I'm one of them. If Pine is in it, 9 out of 10 I'll watch it, unless its a type of movie I just don't enjoy. I could care less about Hemsworth, however. I've never seen him in something that I've thought 'damn he can act' before, though I've probably thought 'damn he can't act' a time or two. I just think he's a pretty face, to some people.

I too watch some movies only because my fav actors and actresses are in it. I'm not disputing this aspect.
Point, rather, is about studios' perception of the general audience that, in large part, aren't fans of X actors to the extent others are.
My opinion is that we live in a time where big names don't sell as well as they used to in the old days. It helps to have popular actors, but not to the extent they'll make popular movies that the general audience isn't interested about. Cue Tom Cruise not being able to save the latest mummy reboot that was a flop (for his fault too, perhaps, if rumors about his ego and how he influenced the script are true)

In terms of this trek, I don't think I'll feel like watching the next movie if they recast one of the main characters.
So I'll just reiterate that keeping Kirk is far more important than bringing his dad back, no matter how much the actor may be popular thank to marvel.

Honestly, I'm even a bit bummed by discovery recasting Spock now, in spite of being another series and reality anyway. It's just that the torch was passed to this cast and they are the characters to me now, I'd love to see them being their faces for some time more before they give them new faces.
In the reboot, I also kind of have still some interest in it because of the cast. They made me love this version of the characters and I enjoy watching them play these roles more. Changing them, in a sequel especially, would pull me out of it emotionally. I said it before, but I'd rather settle for smaller roles than not seeing them at all or get them recasted.
This is an aspect the studio may need to take into consideration (the fact people love the characters as played by this cast) more than the mere idea that if you have X actor in your movie, it's going to be popular.
Even though, again, I do think that Chris Pine needs trek too. Maybe not as much as the studio needs him, but it's better for him to be in it than not IMO. Same for the others.
(This doesn't mean paramount should give them the short end of the stick and refuse to honor previously established deals)

Even $12 million isn't breaking the bank. Especially if the story hinges on Kirk.

I bet Marvel would love to be able to give Robert Downey jr 'only' 6 to 15 millions per film...
Paramount is so cheap.

 

[JKM]

I too watch some movies only because my fav actors and actresses are in it. I'm not disputing this aspect.
Point, rather, is about studios' perception of the general audience that, in large part, aren't fans of X actors to the extent others are.
My opinion is that we live in a time where big names don't sell as well as they used to in the old days. It helps to have popular actors, but not to the extent they'll make popular movies that the general audience isn't interested about. Cue Tom Cruise not being able to save the latest mummy reboot that was a flop (for his fault too, perhaps, if rumors about his ego and how he influenced the script are true)

In terms of this trek, I don't think I'll feel like watching the next movie if they recast one of the main characters.
So I'll just reiterate that keeping Kirk is far more important than bringing his dad back, no matter how much the actor may be popular thank to marvel.

Honestly, I'm even a bit bummed by discovery recasting Spock now, in spite of being another series and reality anyway. It's just that the torch was passed to this cast and they are the characters to me now, I'd love to see them being their faces for some time more before they give them new faces.
In the reboot, I also kind of have still some interest in it because of the cast. They made me love this version of the characters and I enjoy watching them play these roles more. Changing them, in a sequel especially, would pull me out of it emotionally. I said it before, but I'd rather settle for smaller roles than not seeing them at all or get them recasted.
This is an aspect the studio may need to take into consideration (the fact people love the characters as played by this cast) more than the mere idea that if you have X actor in your movie, it's going to be popular.
Even though, again, I do think that Chris Pine needs trek too. Maybe not as much as the studio needs him, but it's better for him to be in it than not IMO. Same for the others.
(This doesn't mean paramount should give them the short end of the stick and refuse to honor previously established deals)



I bet Marvel would love to be able to give Robert Downey jr 'only' 6 to 15 millions per film...
Paramount is so cheap.

The actors/actresses can sometimes heavily influence who goes to see the movies. Probably more than is realized. Take Tom Cruise for example. I can't stand him. Every time I see his face I want to smack it. I literally can't watch and enjoy a film with him in it. He's one of the very few I feel that way about. It's a small list. He's such an ass in real life and it comes through in every character he's played.

On the other hand, Russell Crow can also be a real ass in real life, but I could watch and believe his character in The Gladiator. Guess that means Tom Cruise sucks as an actor.

As for Trek, I don't think Pine needs it. His career is going great right now. As Shatner said, he's in a really good negotiation position with Paramount and should stick to his guns. Paramount however needs him. They try to make this film without him and it will tank. I for one would not pay a dime to go see it if that happens.

Incidentally I was watching Suits the other day and was thinking Gabriel Macht would've made a good Kirk.

 

[Nightdiamond]

The bottom line now is that Paramount is worried the next movie won't be much of a hit. None of this would be happening if the last movie didn't underperformed the way it did. They're saying now that Paramount lost money on that one.

So Paramount may not budge --they're not confident it's going to be a hit. But they need Pine since he is Kirk to the fans of the movies. Replace Pine in the 4th movie after the previous one didn't make money? Franchise suicide. They need Pine and a really compelling story now.

Always had a feeling that the series would falter down. The characters seemed too shoehorned into the storyline and way too much action. I could never get over making cadet Kirk the captain and the other cadets seniors officers on the Enterprise. It sucked all of the potential character development out the window for me.

But with that said, I still like the Nu trek films a lot better than the last TNG films.

 

[Rahul]

My opinion is that we live in a time where big names don't sell as well as they used to in the old days. It helps to have popular actors, but not to the extent they'll make popular movies that the general audience isn't interested about. Cue Tom Cruise not being able to save the latest mummy reboot that was a flop (for his fault too, perhaps, if rumors about his ego and how he influenced the script are true)

I guess we're living in a time of popular characters. Wherin the actor is a big part of the character, but neither the character name nor the actor alone can sell a movie.

Tom Cruise will always be successfull as Ethan Hunt. Jonny Depp as Cpt. Jack Sparrow. Chris Hemsworth as Thor. Put the actor and the character together, and you'll have a hit. Each of those characters in another role? Not so sure. The character alone? Maybe it's possible to recast, but by far no sure thing. Batman was able to move on from Christian Bale to Ben Affleck. For Tony Stark that will probably not be possible. He IS Robert Downey Jr. in this role. (But again - Robert Downey Jr. without Iron Man? Not a sure thing!)

Chris Pine IS nuKirk. He's the face of the Kelvin franchise, even more so than Quinto. Quinto's Spock lives (pretty successfully I might add!) from his Leonard Nimoy impression. Pine is the one who made the role his own. A TOS reboot movie without Pine simply isn't going to be a TOS reboot movie - it would be just another film set in the same universe.

 

[Nyotarules]

I would watch Star Trek even if a donkey played the part of Kirk, just for the novelty factor but the present cast did a great job it would be a shame to change them. Good to get one more film in before they hit 50, although looking 50 now looks younger than looking 50 when TWOK was made.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Have to disagree with that, because yes people do. I'm one of them. If Pine is in it, 9 out of 10 I'll watch it, unless its a type of movie I just don't enjoy.

I agree. I've already said that if Pine isn't in it, I probably won't bother.

That's not to say I don't think anyone can or will (Disco) ever play Kirk again. But Pine is as much a part of this version or the character and his arc as Shatner was to the original.

could care less about Hemsworth, however. I've never seen him in something that I've thought 'damn he can act' before, though I've probably thought 'damn he can't act' a time or two. I just think he's a pretty face, to some people.

I agree here too. I've never been that big on him either. I don't get the pretty face thing either because I think both his brothers are better looking (not that I'm one to judge) and, more importantly, much better actors.

I mean, I've been saying for almost 10 years now that the ST09 cold open is the best 12 minutes of Star Trek ever. But any actor could be substituted and it wouldn't make any difference.

 

[JKM]

I agree. I've already said that if Pine isn't in it, I probably won't bother.

That's not to say I don't think anyone can or will (Disco) ever play Kirk again. But Pine is as much a part of this version or the character and his arc as Shatner was to the original.

I agree here too. I've never been that big on him either. I don't get the pretty face thing either because I think both his brothers are better looking (not that I'm one to judge) and, more importantly, much better actors.

I mean, I've been saying for almost 10 years now that the ST09 cold open is the best 12 minutes of Star Trek ever. But any actor could be substituted and it wouldn't make any difference.

Totally agree. I say pretty face, because people seem to find him attractive. He's never really done it for me. I think Pine is more attractive or Gabriel Macht for example, heck even Quinto is hotter in my book. Either way, a ST movie with a different actor for Kirk would just kill it for me. I would not pay them a dime for being so cheap as to not pay their actors.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Gabe Macht is my #1 man crush.

I would not pay them a dime for being so cheap as to not pay their actors.

And this is a point that shouldn't be too understated.

Above all else, it's a total dick move by Paramount and should not be - in any way - supported just because 'Star Trek.'

 

[flandry84]

6 million isn't bank breaking.

Um,in that case...how are you fixed for a loan...

 

[Malaika]

The actors/actresses can sometimes heavily influence who goes to see the movies. Probably more than is realized. Take Tom Cruise for example. I can't stand him. Every time I see his face I want to smack it. I literally can't watch and enjoy a film with him in it. He's one of the very few I feel that way about. It's a small list. He's such an ass in real life and it comes through in every character he's played.

On the other hand, Russell Crow can also be a real ass in real life, but I could watch and believe his character in The Gladiator. Guess that means Tom Cruise sucks as an actor.

As for Trek, I don't think Pine needs it. His career is going great right now. As Shatner said, he's in a really good negotiation position with Paramount and should stick to his guns. Paramount however needs him. They try to make this film without him and it will tank. I for one would not pay a dime to go see it if that happens.

Incidentally I was watching Suits the other day and was thinking Gabriel Macht would've made a good Kirk.

Cruise was fine when he was younger but yeah, I got tired of him and he seems to be something. .
And yes, there are actors I don't necessarily like as people or my impression of them but I enjoy them as actors (Hugh Grant for example)

I think, in general, it's hard to become an icon nowadays. A lot of actors are interchangeable.

The bottom line now is that Paramount is worried the next movie won't be much of a hit. None of this would be happening if the last movie didn't underperformed the way it did. They're saying now that Paramount lost money on that one.

That's their fault. And not marketing, like Pegg tried to put the blame on.
They should always promote their movies better because that helps even the most mediocre ones, but they can also bring better stories. For me some of the choices lin&Co made in beyond make no sense and they wasted plenty of opportunities (same goes for stid, wasted potential everywhere ).

I guess we're living in a time of popular characters. Wherin the actor is a big part of the character, but neither the character name nor the actor alone can sell a movie

Tom Cruise will always be successfull as Ethan Hunt. Jonny Depp as Cpt. Jack Sparrow. Chris Hemsworth as Thor. Put the actor and the character together, and you'll have a hit. Each of those characters in another role? Not so sure. The character alone? Maybe it's possible to recast, but by far no sure thing. Batman was able to move on from Christian Bale to Ben Affleck. For Tony Stark that will probably not be possible. He IS Robert Downey Jr. in this role. (But again - Robert Downey Jr. without Iron Man? Not a sure thing!)

Basically

Chris Pine IS nuKirk. He's the face of the Kelvin franchise, even more so than Quinto. Quinto's Spock lives (pretty successfully I might add!) from his Leonard Nimoy impression. Pine is the one who made the role his own. A TOS reboot movie without Pine simply isn't going to be a TOS reboot movie - it would be just another film set in the same universe.

I have to disagree here though. Pine is Kirk and I agree that losing him is a big deal, but Quinto doesn't make an impersonation (that is Urban's talent) and his Spock is as much the face of this trek as Kirk is, if not more actually.
Some wanna ignore this aspect for the same reason they pretend the original trio dynamic is still the same here but JJ made Spock co-protagonist, he pretty much said the first movie was about him more than Kirk. His character's arc is deeply intertwined with the alternate reality that was created, in a way, by another version of himself. The Vulcan diaspora, his relationship with Uhura, the way his emotional development was accelerated.. Kirk has his daddy issues but Spock has a house of differences that separate him from tos Spock.
He's different.. better yet, he's a more contemporary version of a character that quite possibly is the most iconic of trek. I mean, there is a reason why they made Michael related to him, specifically, in Discovery and they now, desperately, want to bring their own Spock to the show Coincidentally, their casting also seems to be a tad more influenced by Quinto than Nimoy's Spock, if we want to be completely honest.

Kirk is important because he's Kirk but mostly because he's the captain. Spock is important because he's... Spock.

 

[JKM]

You can't have Kirk without Spock and you can't have Quinto without Pine or vice versa. They play off each other so well.

 

[Malaika]

You can't have Kirk without Spock and you can't have Quinto without Pine or vice versa. They play off each other so well.

To be honest, when this reboot started back in 2009, I was among the ones who wouldn't mind seeing this Spock become the natural hero of this trek, and thus not make it all stuck in the idea that Kirk had to be it. I even saw him as the better option as a captain.
3 movies later, though, I agree with your point still.

My only issue is that I was never interested about the Kirk show and I think that, more often than not, it's a hindrance. I don't think he must always be front and center just because it was like that in the old days. I think the better story with more potential should be focused on, not Kirk's daddy issues because you gotta make it about kirk all the time and you apparently cannot find anything new to do with him. He should be there and important, but not the be all end all of the story.

I think JJ's idea was to make them both co-protagonists with equal importance. Spock surely wasn't just the hero's sidekick, an aspect that sadly Lin didn't get as beyond pretty much sidelined him instead treating him as Kirk's other friend after Mccoy (a curious movie, though, because it isn't that much about Kirk either. But it also isn't an ensemble movie. I don't know what it wanted to be)

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Even $12 million isn't breaking the bank. Especially if the story hinges on Kirk.

To corporate executives? Yes. It's frankly amazing how penny pinching they can be. A lot of the times you hear about budgets being so high is really just exaggerated so that they can claim to writers that they can't afford to pay more money because they didn't make enough back. Hollywood is full of very shady people looking out for their own instead of paying others due.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I guess we're living in a time of popular characters. Wherin the actor is a big part of the character, but neither the character name nor the actor alone can sell a movie.

Tom Cruise will always be successfull as Ethan Hunt. Jonny Depp as Cpt. Jack Sparrow. Chris Hemsworth as Thor. Put the actor and the character together, and you'll have a hit. Each of those characters in another role? Not so sure. The character alone? Maybe it's possible to recast, but by far no sure thing. Batman was able to move on from Christian Bale to Ben Affleck. For Tony Stark that will probably not be possible. He IS Robert Downey Jr. in this role. (But again - Robert Downey Jr. without Iron Man? Not a sure thing!)

Sherlock Holmes seemed pretty successful. But I agree it's rare for 1 actor to fill the lead role in multiple successful franchises.