Chris Pine Could Be UNSTOPPABLE For Tony Scott
by Matt Goldberg Posted:June 4th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
|
|
|
If The Hollywood Reporter is to be believed, then director Tony Scott is about to get much better than he deserves. The guy already has some sort of weird hold on Denzel Washington (my guess: explicit photos of Washington curbstomping infants which is really unfair because those photos lack context) and now it looks like he’s going to get Chris Pine onboard his terrible-looking train movie, “Unstoppable”. According to THR, Pine would play a newbie train conductor (stay with me) whose brought onto replace the veteran train conductor played by Washington (stay with me) due to company cutbacks. I don’t really understand how replacing one guy with another guy saves the company money but okay. They find themselves in a race against time to stop an unmanned, half-mile-long freight train carrying enough combustible liquids and poisonous gas to wipe out a nearby city.
So…someone put all the combustible liquids AND the poisonous gases on the same half-mile train? What was the alternate title for this movie, “3:10 to Are You Fucking Kidding Me?” I don’t know where “Unstoppable” will fit in with scheduling for “Star Trek 2″ but at least Pine has that film in his back pocket and can afford to do what is, at best, a paycheck movie. That or Scott had damning photos of Pine also curb-stomping infants. Why would these celebrities do that if they know it’s so frowned upon?
Please Like Collider on Facebook
|
|
|
Related Links
- UNSTOPPABLE Blu-ray Review
- UNSTOPPABLE Review
- Denzel Washington Exclusive Video Interview UNSTOPPABLE; Plus Updates on SAFE HOUSE and We Talk About Comic-Con
- Denzel Washington, Chris Pine, Rosario Dawson and Director Tony Scott Interview UNSTOPPABLE
- 5 Movie Clips and New Images from UNSTOPPABLE Starring Chris Pine and Denzel Washington

Replacing a older veteran with a newbie is of course a cost saving move. Somebody has to do the job but let's say Washington was driving trains for thirty years. With incremental raises over that time lets say he gets paid $60,000 a year. He also has better insurance, some paid time off, etc… You let him go early (thus avoiding benefits packages etc…) and replace him with some young kid who doesn't have to get all the insurance benefits and paid time off, and you pay him $40,000 a year.
Hell in entertainment land, that's why Stargate Atlantis got cancelled. The cast and crew made too much money. They start over with "Universe" and those people make less money then they were shelling out last year. Even if they use the same film crew, it's a new show, with new contracts to be signed, and those could be for less money.
But with train conductors, it's cost saving to put the younger, inexperienced guy on the train filled with the combustible liquids and poisonous gas? WHO RUNS THIS TRAIN COMPANY?!
But with train conductors, it's cost saving to put the younger, inexperienced guy on the train filled with the combustible liquids and poisonous gas? WHO RUNS THIS TRAIN COMPANY?!
Replacing a older veteran with a newbie is of course a cost saving move. Somebody has to do the job but let's say Washington was driving trains for thirty years. With incremental raises over that time lets say he gets paid $60,000 a year. He also has better insurance, some paid time off, etc… You let him go early (thus avoiding benefits packages etc…) and replace him with some young kid who doesn't have to get all the insurance benefits and paid time off, and you pay him $40,000 a year.
Hell in entertainment land, that's why Stargate Atlantis got cancelled. The cast and crew made too much money. They start over with "Universe" and those people make less money then they were shelling out last year. Even if they use the same film crew, it's a new show, with new contracts to be signed, and those could be for less money.
But with train conductors, it's cost saving to put the younger, inexperienced guy on the train filled with the combustible liquids and poisonous gas? WHO RUNS THIS TRAIN COMPANY?!
Well just because he's inexperienced doesn't mean he isn't TRAINED. Or you could have what happened at my last job and I'm 21. I trained in a new person and got laid off 2 months later once they had the hang of things in an effort to save the FIFTY CENTS more per hour that I made…
And Tony Scott runs the train company…
So everyone at the train company has ADD.
So everyone at the train company has ADD.
Well just because he's inexperienced doesn't mean he isn't TRAINED. Or you could have what happened at my last job and I'm 21. I trained in a new person and got laid off 2 months later once they had the hang of things in an effort to save the FIFTY CENTS more per hour that I made…
And Tony Scott runs the train company…
Well just because he's inexperienced doesn't mean he isn't TRAINED. Or you could have what happened at my last job and I'm 21. I trained in a new person and got laid off 2 months later once they had the hang of things in an effort to save the FIFTY CENTS more per hour that I made…
And Tony Scott runs the train company…
So everyone at the train company has ADD.