Star Trek 4 Reportedly Shelved

[Ovation]

False equivalence. I don't have multiple lifetimes of money already in the bank. This type of comment just perpetuates the rich class boot licking in society.

It’s not a false equivalence at all. A contract is legally binding on all parties unless all signatories agree to alter it. Moreover, the amount of money involved is irrelevant to the principle of honouring a contractual obligation. If Pine and Hemsworth were holding out for more than what they agreed to in a contract, I’d be joining in on denouncing their greed. However, Paramount is NOT a charity, nor a tiny indie production company, and no one forced the studio to offer contracts. “We” are not “owed” a film such that the actors “should take a pay cut” for the sake of “the fans”.

Besides, it’s not as if the “savings” would be donated to altruistic ends—they’d go to the even (far wealthier) corporate investors.

 

[fireproof78]

False equivalence. I don't have multiple lifetimes of money already in the bank. This type of comment just perpetuates the rich class boot licking in society.

Not about money. About agreed upon contract. In other words, walking back on your word.

I don't know about you, but making a promise and then reininging does not have an economic threshold in my experience.

 

[Relayer1]

False equivalence. I don't have multiple lifetimes of money already in the bank. This type of comment just perpetuates the rich class boot licking in society.

Whilst I get where you're coming from (I think actors, sportsmen etc. are hugely overvalued and overpaid, but many people are), if they're bringing some of the movie's success by their presence and performance, they're entitled to a cut. If they don't get it, the suits will and are they any more worthy ?

Also, besides the being true to your word aspect of the reduced pay offer, at that end of the business your cut denotes your profile and box-office value. It's a measure of your standing. Take less now and you're effectively devaluing your self out of the 'A' list.

Hollywood is packed full of successful actors. Many TV actors never need to work again, let alone movie stars.

Thor's as iconic a role as any out there, and Pine has more going on than being the second guy to play Kirk. Neither of them need the roles.

Neither of them needs to be attached to a flagging movie series either.

 

[PixelMagic]

I think you guys are missing my point. Yes, a contract should be honored, I get it. What I'm saying is the fence sitting over money is crazy when you are already super rich. Let's pretend I've been playing Kirk since '09, and I have the same net worth.

My decision making would go like this.

Did I enjoy filming the past three films, and would enjoy doing another?

Yes = I'll do it, even at a reduced pay, because I already have so much money, what's the difference?

No = I won't do it. Even if you quadruple my salary I won't do it, because I have enough money I don't need it.

That is how it's a false equivalence. I cannot with my current economic status turn down work, even if I dislike it. I need the money to live. These guys are set, so money should not even come into the equation of if they consider doing it or not.

Everyone in capitalist society, especially Americans, just can't wrap their mind around this concept, because more money is an automatic good thing in their minds.

 

[Ovation]

You’re ignoring the knock on effects of the precedent it would set for actors far lower on the economic food chain.

Big studio: Alright, everyone listen up. We know you all have signed contracts but we’re going to roll back salaries 40%. The three big names are on board so the rest of you will follow suit. Don’t think we can’t find replacements for “random red shirts 4-12” who’ll do it for even less.

 

[Relayer1]

You’re ignoring the knock on effects of the precedent it would set for actors far lower on the economic food chain.

Big studio: Alright, everyone listen up. We know you all have signed contracts but we’re going to roll back salaries 40%. The three big names are on board so the rest of you will follow suit. Don’t think we can’t find replacements for “random red shirts 4-12” who’ll do it for even less.

You know they'd do it.

They'd even argue that they were obligated to do it because 'Responsibilities to shareholders'.

Everyone in capitalist society, especially Americans, just can't wrap their mind around this concept, because more money is an automatic good thing in their minds.

Oh I agree. It's an unsustainable model.

At some point the lower and upper markers are going to have to be redefined from 'Very little/as much as possible' to something more akin to 'Enough/generous'. Or even 'Same for everyone '.

We're getting into political considerations, philosophy, futurism and ideas of post capitalism, post scarcity societies and universal basic income.

There's threads for that, and they're interesting (though you might have to visit The Neutral Zone).

Join in !

 

[fireproof78]

Everyone in capitalist society, especially Americans, just can't wrap their mind around this concept, because more money is an automatic good thing in their minds.

I can wrap my mind just fine. I work in a job where I am paid considerably less than I could get at another agency because there is personal fulfilment.

However, the point that is often missed for individuals that are not paid in Hollywood actor amounts is that things increase with percentages. I look at the amount of money and say "I'd be set." But, richer individuals do not, as their expenses go up in tandem with their wages. It's a matter of percentages, not a matter of amount.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is, if Pine were to agree to Paramount's going back on a prior contract it sets up a poor negotiating precedent, one that could bite Pine far harder down the road.

I appreciate your point of view, I really do, specifically around Hollywood actors and sports starts. In my dream world there would be no such things. However, I cannot imagine having that sum of money and how that would change my life. It's very different.

 

[PixelMagic]

I can wrap my mind just fine. I work in a job where I am paid considerably less than I could get at another agency because there is personal fulfilment.

However, the point that is often missed for individuals that are not paid in Hollywood actor amounts is that things increase with percentages. I look at the amount of money and say "I'd be set." But, richer individuals do not, as their expenses go up in tandem with their wages. It's a matter of percentages, not a matter of amount.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is, if Pine were to agree to Paramount's going back on a prior contract it sets up a poor negotiating precedent, one that could bite Pine far harder down the road.

I appreciate your point of view, I really do, specifically around Hollywood actors and sports starts. In my dream world there would be no such things. However, I cannot imagine having that sum of money and how that would change my life. It's very different.

A well reasoned response, I appreciate it.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I wonder how some underestimate the amount of work is put into these movies. Star Trek is probably the most grueling experience he's ever had as an actor because there's so much physical work done for months. He's not just sitting in a chair barking orders to officers. Just watch all the behind the scenes stuff. He could either do that all over again for less pay or do original projects with original characters to make his own. I wouldn't be surprised if of the movies he did in 2016 he got more out of HELL OR HIGH WATER than STAR TREK BEYOND.

 

[David cgc]

I wonder how some underestimate the amount of work is put into these movies. Star Trek is probably the most grueling experience he's ever had as an actor because there's so much physical work done for months. He's not just sitting in a chair barking orders to officers. Just watch all the behind the scenes stuff. He could either do that all over again for less pay or do original projects with original characters to make his own. I wouldn't be surprised if of the movies he did in 2016 he got more out of HELL OR HIGH WATER than STAR TREK BEYOND.

You're reminding me how Matt Smith and Peter Capaldi both blew out the same knee the same way working on Doctor Who, and Capaldi figured it was from the stock move of running, stopping suddenly, and turning around dramatically.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I think the silliest was how the press overreacted to Daniel Craig’s hallows humored comment on how he’d rather slit his wrists, when asked if he’d do another Bond film. In context, he had just finished shooting a Bond film for six months straight and the last thing he wanted to do was THINK of doing that again, which is why he said he wanted to take a year long break before deciding if he’d come back. His predecessors like Moore and Brosnan were supportive of him during that media backlash because they knew how grueling shooting Bond films were.

 

[Disco!Disco!]

https://variety.com/2019/tv/features/i-am-the-night-patty-jenkins-chris-pine-1203102592/

“I found Patty at a time in my life when I was searching for deeper resonance with the material. It’s about witnessing and being witnessed. As a friend, Patty does that, and as a creator she helps me see aspects of myself that I usually don’t notice.” TNT is hoping that millions will tune in to see those aspects too.

Trek probably just doesn't cut it for Pine creatively anymore.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I do find it interesting that it was only after BEYOND that Pine started getting more critical prolific non-Trek work, whereas during the years between the first and third he mainly did a lot of forgettable stuff, with the bottom of the barrel being that JACK RYAN reboot getting unceremoniously dumped on January.

 

[Lance]

The tough reality is that Paramount bungled the kelvin series on nearly every behind the scenes detail and drove the film franchise into the ground. That isn't a reflection on the movies themselves, which are great IMO, but rather on the shenanigans that led to a mostly well recieved first installment tanking in the space of three films, through mismanagement and incompetence. Certainly by *this* stage, we're ten years on from the reboot movie, the actors aren't invested in these characters anymore and have all pretty much moved on with their lives, and the fact that Paramount never capitalized on what they had while they still had it is totally Paramount's fault. If they really want to reunite this cast one more time, they'll have to bite the bullet and pay the actors what their contracts specify. The reality is that isn't going to happen. And neither is another movie starring this cast, which is bloody unfortunate.

Personally, I'm hopeful of a Clone Wars-style TV spin off that can use basic likenesses of the Kelvin characters and settings but recast the voices. But those movies, with that cast, are basically dead and buried. IMO.

 

[Khan 2.0]

The tough reality is that Paramount bungled the kelvin series on nearly every behind the scenes detail and drove the film franchise into the ground. That isn't a reflection on the movies themselves, which are great IMO, but rather on the shenanigans that led to a mostly well recieved first installment tanking in the space of three films, through mismanagement and incompetence. Certainly by *this* stage, we're ten years on from the reboot movie, the actors aren't invested in these characters anymore and have all pretty much moved on with their lives, and the fact that Paramount never capitalized on what they had while they still had it is totally Paramount's fault. If they really want to reunite this cast one more time, they'll have to bite the bullet and pay the actors what their contracts specify. The reality is that isn't going to happen. And neither is another movie starring this cast, which is bloody unfortunate.

After ST09 it did sort of feel like ..well we did it, we did the impossible successfully recast the characters and brought back Star Trek to the tune of 400m like Batman. and..er.. that's it..bye.. oh sorry you want sequel right.. like a Dark Knight..er.. hold on ..(Cowboys&Aliens, Super 8 etc).. ok.. Trek sequel right..Dark Knight .. right joker.. ok Khan!..Wrath of Khan!.. oh wait Star Wars!!...... er.. Star...trek?

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I wasn’t even a big fan of the 2009 film, but it really felt like Trek had finally reentered the big pop culture status it hadn’t had since the 90s. Love it or hate it, it reignited the franchise. It’s weird to think it’s now been a decade, and that despite such a strong start it ultimately fizzled out.

Ironically BEYOND did pretty well when you factor in inflation, sitting next to TUC which was a definite hit for Paramount in ‘91, but it’s only because BEYOND had such a larger budget it didn’t make back what it needed to. This is why I think Paramount should have aimed for a more mid-range budget. Having the fancy f/x work in the Kelvin films was nice, but it’s honestly not that important for Trek.

 

[Khan 2.0]

I wasn’t even a big fan of the 2009 film, but it really felt like Trek had finally reentered the big pop culture status it hadn’t had since the 90s. Love it or hate it, it reignited the franchise. It’s weird to think it’s now been a decade, and that despite such a strong start it ultimately fizzled out.

ST09 brought Trek back to the coolness level of 96/FC...it was still 'cool' with STID (at least with general audiences) but then with Beyond its like audiences could sense Trek was back to being all nerdy (esp in light of SW/TFA) with funny looking heavy make up aliens on a rocky planet instead of humanoid villains/klingons/romulans and earth in peril.. and critics on the SMs saying its a welcome return to a more Trekkie Trek movie (and of course there was that dreadful F&F 1st trailer that played infront of TFA that turned off just about everyone) .. had they gone Orci/Shatner I guess it would've been the same as Beyond 'cool' wise ? or maybe not?..we'll never know

 

[Ovation]

had they gone Orci/Shatner

There’s a Disney movie I saw a few years ago out of parental obligations. It had a song you should listen to some time. Title is Let It Go.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

ST09 brought Trek back to the coolness level of 96/FC...it was still 'cool' with STID (at least with general audiences) but then with Beyond its like audiences could sense Trek was back to being all nerdy (esp in light of SW/TFA) with funny looking heavy make up aliens on a rocky planet instead of humanoid villains/klingons/romulans and earth in peril.. and critics on the SMs saying its a welcome return to a more Trekkie Trek movie (and of course there was that dreadful F&F 1st trailer that played infront of TFA that turned off just about everyone) .. had they gone Orci/Shatner I guess it would've been the same as Beyond 'cool' wise ? or maybe not?..we'll never know

I think STID might have hurt it through a combo of coming out too late and not being as fun as the first (at least from my experience, I know many non-Trekkies that felt this way). It did make less domestically, and its higher international take is just a reflection of how the market had changed between the four years. By the time BEYOND came out that excitement was no longer there, and of course many balked at how it was initially promoted with that teaser trailer.

I'm not sure how a Orci/Shatner would have retained the so called "cool" factor.

 

[saddestmoon]

The one thing about the Kelvinverse Trek movies I wouldn’t change is the starship tech and designs: IMO they are/were a welcome change from those spanning the previous TOS/TNG series and movies.

I’m holding onto an illogical / irrational hope that a fourth movie will be made (so much so that my imagination is still wandering across the Kelvinverse, considering the what-might-have-been...)