I get that his name draws views but I don't think that's a factor going from S1 to S2. It's not like he went from nobody to somebody. He was already popular prior to S1, he didn't get more popular between seasons. His S1 salary probably already accounted for his popularity so it was most likely also accounted in the S2 salary. But, if he thinks he should've been paid more because of his name recognition then that's him pretty much trying to do the same thing he's blaming the accountants for, he would be trying to squeeze out every penny from his popularity.

[–] ursakhiin@beehaw.org 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

So in your estimation, you don't think he should be upset that Disney, one of the biggest organizations in the world, is refusing to pay him what he believes is value to be?

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Kinda? He's free to ask whatever price the believes he is worth, I don't have an issue with that. But just like he's free to ask whatever price he thinks is fair it's also fair for the other side to just say "No, thanks". No reason to be upset about it. Or do you think I should side with someone in the top 1% simply because one of the biggest corporations in the world told them no? It's someone with "set for life" money complaining that the corporation with essentially infinite funds didn't want to give him as much money as he demanded. I think siding with either side (based on the information we know so far) is stupid.

[–] ursakhiin@beehaw.org 1 points 17 hours ago

I mean. I'm not siding with Renner, here. I initially pointed out an observation I didn't see anybody making.

I replied to you specifically because it seemed to me you were discounting Renners contribution to the success of the first season. I do think it's fine for him to be publicly pissed about this, if what he's saying is true. I don't know either way but if he left those meetings feeling that way, there may be a reason and there's no reason to assume he's just a rich guy being a rich asshole.