6

This means:

  • most per episode in the TOS era?
  • most per episode in the TNG era (incl. DS9, Voyager and Enterprise)?
  • most for a TOS film?
  • most for a TNG film?
  • most for an Abrams-verse film?
  • most in the Nu-Trek era (Discovery, Picard, Lower Decks, Prodigy, and Strange New Words)
ThePopMachine
  • 59,504
  • 42
  • 247
  • 519
  • 1
    I'd try to rewrite this not to be five separate questions, or it's going to be closed as 'too broad' since there would be more than one right answer. Perhaps specify that a good answer needs to include all 5? Of course, that's going to make it really hard to answer... – KutuluMike Aug 05 '15 at 15:35
  • 5
    VTC as too broad. while certainly related, asking for five distinctive answers within one is way too much. – phantom42 Aug 05 '15 at 15:35
  • 7
    Seriously folks, how is this 'too broad'. Too broad means the question can't have an answer because it's too general or far reaching. There is no problem here in determining what is asked. Would people consider it too broad if I split the TV from movies? – ThePopMachine Aug 05 '15 at 16:51
  • 2
    too broad in that you've asked for five related but separate things. without resorting to the CW as michael did, most people would only be able to find some of the info you're asking for, leading to partial answers. – phantom42 Aug 05 '15 at 19:42
  • @phantom42: What's special about CW, when everyone can edit answers anyhow? – ThePopMachine Aug 05 '15 at 19:54
  • technically nothing, but etiquette is to not drastically change other people's answers like that. marking it as CW flags the answer as being open to it. – phantom42 Aug 05 '15 at 19:58
  • 1
    I'm going to split the question up to satisfy the 'too broad' camp. @MichaelEdenfield: you may want to port your partial answers there. – ThePopMachine Aug 05 '15 at 19:58
  • I'm going to try to dig up more reliable sources for some of my numbers; they were mostly just internet BBS/forum posts. If I can find them I'll move my answers over. – KutuluMike Aug 05 '15 at 20:56
  • 1
    It might not be 'too broad' - but I think it's stretching the limit of being on topic. The question is more about the TV/movie business than anything actually sci-fi - just because the shows/films had science fiction content, doesn't mean every question about them is. – HorusKol Aug 06 '15 at 00:01
  • 2
    @HorusKol actually, the meta consensus was that the work has to be on topic, not necessarily the subject of the question. – phantom42 Aug 07 '15 at 15:44
  • @phantom42: This point comes up all the time and I think it routinely results in unwarranted downvotes. – ThePopMachine Aug 07 '15 at 15:47
  • @phantom42 - that's why I said "stretching" – HorusKol Aug 08 '15 at 01:51
  • 1
    Edited slightly. Nominating for reopen because there was just pointless picking on the question for no really good reason, IMO. As the existing answer shows, the question is not "too broad". It's not to broad to understand. It's not too broad to answer. And the answer is not overly long. – ThePopMachine Oct 17 '15 at 02:34
  • 5
    I am going to reopen this question, as the answers seem perfectly reasonable in the question's current form. – Thaddeus Howze Nov 17 '17 at 22:38
  • 2
    Related meta "Should a moderator have reopened this question?" – Valorum Nov 17 '17 at 23:26
  • 1
    @ThaddeusHowze - Since your action inspired the meta, you might like to weigh in. – Valorum Nov 18 '17 at 10:41
  • 1
    I might like to. I might not. Since it was overturned by the community, even after I saw the answer presented as a perfectly reasonable effort, if you collectively, don't want the question to exist, I bow to your collective efforts. As to whether I should have opened a question, I understood it was a prerogative of being a mod to experiment and learn. I have always chosen to have a light touch and the community has spoken: Without a significant rewrite or policy change, this question is closed. – Thaddeus Howze Nov 19 '17 at 05:06
  • 4
    With all due respect everyone, this is preposterous. There is an answer right there that is reasonable in length that shows the question is not too broad. What exactly do people think too broad is for? It's for questions that's are too broad to be answered reasonably at all or within a reasonably sized response. – ThePopMachine Nov 19 '17 at 05:30
  • 4
    @ThePopMachine - Ignoring the fact that it's a terrible answer, who the hell knows if bits of it are right or wrong. If some bits are wrong should we still upvote the bits that are right? Being broad is about having a single question and a single answer. This doesn't. – Valorum Nov 20 '17 at 23:48
  • 2
    Funny how you can't fit all the relevant tags. – Möoz Nov 22 '17 at 23:18
  • 3
    @Möoz - I chuckled. Proof if proof were needed – Valorum Nov 22 '17 at 23:20
  • 1
    @valorum How are those issues different than any other list question? Do I have to go verify each of these colors before upvoting or downvoting? Is my vote just because one color is wrong or missing? Or maybe these complaints about the expected answers are red herrings. This is not the only example of a "broad", hard to verify as a voter, question/answer we're perfectly fine with on the stack: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/21301/what-color-can-lightsabers-be –  Nov 28 '17 at 14:08
  • 1
    Requiring effort doesn't make a question too broad. If anything you reward the answer for it. Not everything is supposed to have a two minute Google or off-the-cuff memory or e-book search answer. –  Nov 28 '17 at 14:09
  • 3
    @creationedge - The problem (as I've repeatedly stated) isn't that this is a bad question per se, in fact it's actually several good questions. The issue is that it invites answers in multiple parts, raising the spectre that the answer might be completely right and completely wrong. – Valorum Nov 28 '17 at 17:15
  • 3
    @CreationEdge - The answer below us a perfect example. Let's assume the TNG figures are right and the TOS figures are wrong. Then someone posts an answer with better TOS figures and wrong TNG numbers. Which way do you vote? – Valorum Nov 28 '17 at 17:17
  • 2
    @Valorum This is the case for a huge number of answers on this site. All of those "identify all the characters." What if some of the identifications are correct and others incorrect? If some things are incorrect you edit the answer to make it better. The whole interest of this question is to see the figures for different eras together, splitting it into a separate question for each era would be silly. – Bamboo Nov 28 '17 at 17:38
  • @Bamboo is making an excellent point explicitly which really gets to the heart of why the question is interesting. Disassembling the question makes destroys the essence of the question. Would people feel more comfortable if it were phrased like, "How has the earning of leading Star Trek actors evolved over the eras?" – ThePopMachine Nov 28 '17 at 18:29
  • 2
    @Bamboo - That's a false analogy because you're asking about a single thing taken/drawn at the same time. This question is asking about ten different things, bounded by more than 6 decades – Valorum Nov 28 '17 at 19:41
  • @Valorum: Yes, and that is the point. The evolution over time, not the comparison between series. That's why it says "era". – ThePopMachine Nov 28 '17 at 20:48
  • 1
    @Valorum You are changing your argument. The argument you've been making is that this is too broad because some parts of the answer could be right and some might be wrong. I've pointed out a large class of questions/answers that we are fine with on this site that fail that test. Now you are changing your argument to say it's okay if the original question is related to a single illustration? This question is related to a single franchise, why is that different? – Bamboo Nov 28 '17 at 20:50
  • 2
    @Bamboo - My argument has always been the same. This isn't one good question, it's several good questions. That's also a definition of "too broad". – Valorum Nov 28 '17 at 20:59
  • @Valorum You vote the way you want, and if one isn't correct you can leave a comment saying so or if you know they're not correct, then edit in the correct information, like a productive SE user. Regardless, it doesn't make the question too broad. Even on non-list questions, I've often found most of an answer sound or correct but had little pieces that were just not correct and I just leave a comment saying so and if it gets fixed, ta-da, upvote (but that's just me.And if they're really minor, I vote anyway) –  Nov 28 '17 at 21:22
  • 1
    @Valorum Except when someone asks 10 of these questions, inevitably someone else wants to just ask the "parent" question so all the others are closed as dupes and people stop asking the repetitive questions. Can't have it both ways, especially since you've been a vocal proponent of the "ask parent question, close rest as dupes" strategy. –  Nov 28 '17 at 21:23
  • 1
    So, would "How do the salaries of the top earners 1) TOS 2) TOS movies 3) TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT TV shows 4) TNG movies 5) Abrams movies - compare in 2015 dollars" be acceptable? It's one question, that require multiple inputs.... – RDFozz Nov 28 '17 at 22:31
  • if you know they're not correct, then edit in the correct information, like a productive SE user And what if there are ten different answers (most of which have some inaccuracies of some form), which eventually get 'corrected' and inevitably start to look the same; we'll then have 10 of the same answers, no? – Möoz Dec 03 '17 at 22:12
  • 1
    How is adding 5 new series going to make this a more focused question? What if people don't agree with how you've lumped various series together? – DavidW Aug 03 '21 at 20:22
  • @DavidW: If they don't agree with how they're lumped, then they should ask a different question. This is the question I'm asking. – ThePopMachine Aug 03 '21 at 21:06

1 Answers1

14

It's going to be an effort to find all of these, so I'm just going to make this answer CW and let people fill in whatever they can find.

To start with, I found some basic information on salaries for the TNG-era cast in the TNG-era movies:

  • Star Trek: First Contact (1996), Patrick Stewart & Jonathan Frakes: $5 million
  • Star Trek: Insurrection (1998), Patrick Stewart: $9.5 million
  • Star Trek: Nemesis (2002), Patrick Stewart: $13 million

For the Star Trek reboots, Chris Pine was paid $2 million for Star Trek Into Darkness (2013), and supposedly promised $3.5 million if there was a sequel.

In addition, I know that for Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country (1991), Nimoy ensured that DeForest Kelley got a $1 million salary, since they knew it would likely be his last film job ever. However, by that point, Shatner was reportedly earning $6 million per movie.

TV Salary information is a bit harder to come by (the studios don't share as much with investors etc.), but the best information I could find claims:

  • William Shatner made ~ $5,000 per episode for TOS (1966-1969)
  • Patrick Stewart made ~ $45,000 per episode for TNG (1987–1994)
  • Kate Mulgrew made ~ $60,000 per episode for VOY (1995–2001)
Rogue Jedi
  • 66,921
  • 37
  • 322
  • 509
KutuluMike
  • 103,618
  • 24
  • 367
  • 503
  • 3
    Adjusted for inflation, Shatner's $5,000 per episode above is only around $37,000 per episode in 2015 dollars. Source: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ – Todd Wilcox Aug 05 '15 at 16:58
  • 11
    [citation needed] Could you please include links to the sources where you found these salaries? – Thunderforge Aug 05 '15 at 17:35