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 1 day 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 1 day 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.