[MissionTrek08]

Originally Posted by jerhanner

Just to clarify: all those quotes of mine should be in the SARCASTIC font. All 4 of those directors got paid, and paid well. I was trying to make a point that ALL DIRECTORS get paid, just like all actors.

Sarcasm! That's where I was going with that. You can't seriously think I thought Hitchcock never cashed a paycheck, right?????

If it helps, I read it that way when you first posted. Also, I knew all those directors got paid well, which certainly helped.

Sometimes it pays to directly declare sarcasm, since the dry variety rarely comes off in written form as intended.

More to the point: Hitchcock was a master of his art form, AND he was always incredibly aware he was making commercial, moneymaking films. The false argument presented elsewhere that any filmmaker must choose one or the other path is naive to say the least.

[The Saint]

Originally Posted by Digginonrand

. . . And for a director, not making money on a film is burning bridges. Making money on a film makes you more marketable as a director and allows you to make more movies. Pretty simple concept, really, and I don't mean that to sound rude.

Just as I said -- it's the means. And for the studio, and sure, the producer too, it's both the means and the end. But it shouldn't be so for the writers or director.

Let me clarify and reinforce this -- I'm not saying, nor have i ever said, that you can't be in it for the money. But if the money is all you're in it for, pack it up and go home.

[MigueldaRican]

Originally Posted by The Saint

Just as I said -- it's the means. And for the studio, and sure, the producer too, it's both the means and the end. But it shouldn't be so for the writers or director.

Let me clarify and reinforce this -- I'm not saying, nor have i ever said, that you can't be in it for the money. But if the money is all you're in it for, pack it up and go home.

You're right of course. The argument is whether Abrams and Orci and others are in it only for the money. Evidence shows they aren't. You own cynicism says they are.

[horatio]

They are of course also in for future money. Reputation is an important factor for anyone who works on project-basis, which provides incentives to do more than the studio expects from you, at least if you are a young actor/producer/writer. Besides, I don't know the movie business but I am sure these folks have incentive contracts and their payment is based on how the movie performs.
Of course there exists the risk that the studio is in for a sell-out strategy, ie doing one movie which betrays Trek ideas, does a lot of money but destroys the future of the franchise.
It's a short-run long-run tradeoff and if the studio executives have poorly designed contracts based on stock options and stuff like that, this might happen.
But I doubt heavily so because a) Paramount saw what happens if you do too much Trek at one time and suck out the franchise, b) the franchise has the potential to make money for another 40 years and c) there are fans among the team at the helm of this production.