I'm sorry, but... seriously? I'm afraid I just don't follow on this one.
Star Trek has been a cash cow ever since Paramount pulled the plug on their aborted TV series and decided to make a movie instead.
Then they green-lit a second feature film, on a TV budget, and even tried to strong-arm the director they hired into not
bringing in a music composer they didn't want to pay for (Nick has gone on record griping about this). They readjusted their expectations following TMP
's figures, and decided to make every last bit of money off the ST banner, quality be damned. Then when there was 'talk' about 'possibly' making a third movie, the producers suddenly got cold feet about killing off a major character.
Then they allowed an unqualified writer/director to manage the fifth film because they were still high off their success with the fourth. When they saw they were in trouble, they lowered their budget accordingly. What the hey, as long as they were still making money. Then they got cold feet about making a sixth film, and by all accounts might never have gotten around to it had it not been a ST anniversary year. There was still 'some' money that had not yet been sucked out of the cash cow. We can't have that.
Next you have the TNG
spin-offs: three consecutive series worth
, no less. One spin-off I could understand, because TNG
actually had the ratings to justify it. Could DS9
say the same? Sure, I realize "we all like DS9
", but... That show started steadily declining immediately after the pilot. I vividly remember press interviews going into VOY
's premier: with questions like "You don't think there's a danger of oversaturation?" being answered with Berman's usual PR speak "Well, of course we're very much aware of the dangers of making 'too many trips to the well', but I can assure you the matter has been given all due consideration." Translation:
the studio was milking their cash cow yet again, and the producers having to put their positive spin on the situation knew it all too well. But at least they had job security (something most people don't get in Hollywood).
I guess we're just not on the same bus, if by 'cash cow' you mean that this is the first time since TMP
that ST has tried to play in the big leagues (even though Kevin's analysis of ST on the TV front demonstrates this is also not the case). But from where I stand, it took some serious balls to gamble that the franchise could achieve this on the feature film front. Certainly no less so than gambling that a high-budget production value TV series could thrive in the then-untested first-run syndicated market. I don't see anything risk-averse about ST09
's development, because (since you bring up budgets and target audiences) there was nothing
in the numbers for movies I-X
to indicate that ST could sustain itself as an A-level film franchise. Though I suppose if you wanted to put a cynical spin on that you could say "Yeah, well, there was nothing risky about such a move because ST really 'sort of' had nothing to lose by that point. So... meh."
If the next film is content to simply do 'only what worked the last time' (as certain other semi-recent films/series in the ST franchise were guilty of doing) then I will say ST has again fallen back into "milking the cash cow dry" mode. Anyway, it's now nearly three hours since I came off my graveyard shift, so... goodnight y'all.