[Captain Tom Coughlin]

I think at the time, putting money into any Trek project at all was a pretty big risk.

[kevin]

Definition wise, then Star Trek (the movie this time not the overall franchise) still isn't a proven 'cash cow' yet either - the movies revenues were probably enough to make it successful (well, given the greenlight for the sequel we can safely assume so) but it's costs were considerably higher this time than the usual Trek film and as we also know, the attempts to merchandise this time around didn't fully work out because the toy lines didn't last long.

Harry Potter, Nolan's Batman, Twilight, Transformers and Pirates - those are/were cash cows.

(Maybe the Trek toys were a bad idea anyway.......do kids even play with toys anymore? And the quality didn't seem to be there in the products for the serious adult collector to bother with them).

If it can sustain that sort of box office performance or grow on it over the course of a couple of sequels then it might make it into that category.

At any rate, while the decision to use TOS as the basis for the reboot can be argued as the 'safe(r)' choice, there remained considerable risk in pumping a couple of hundred million dollars into it given the (frankly) pathetic returns of Nemesis and the declining returns of the previous films (which themselves were pretty equally uncreative and un-risky anyway) in general.

Subjectivity over the content aside.

[canadianrosey]

Samwise nailed it. Berman, Braga, and Paramount just pushed uninspired schlock down the public's throats because it kept the coin rolling. Three spinoffs running concurrently, weak movies... It was gruel for breakfast, gruel for lunch, gruel for supper, gruel for takeout, not very good gruel, and far too much of it.

They milked the cow until it practically fell over dead, and it made me so sick to watch that eventually, I stopped watching. All studios make tv shows and movies for money; that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that you could tell it was the only motivating factor left years ago until the Trek franchise ingloriously keeled over with Nemesis, leaving the fans wanting less. It shouldn't have been that way, but greed and arrogance are what they are.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

Definition wise, then Star Trek (the movie this time not the overall franchise) still isn't a proven 'cash cow' yet either - the movies revenues were probably enough to make it successful (well, given the greenlight for the sequel we can safely assume so) but it's costs were considerably higher this time than the usual Trek film and as we also know, the attempts to merchandise this time around didn't fully work out because the toy lines didn't last long.

Harry Potter, Nolan's Batman, Twilight, Transformers and Pirates - those are/were cash cows.

(Maybe the Trek toys were a bad idea anyway.......do kids even play with toys anymore? And the quality didn't seem to be there in the products for the serious adult collector to bother with them).

If it can sustain that sort of box office performance or grow on it over the course of a couple of sequels then it might make it into that category.

At any rate, while the decision to use TOS as the basis for the reboot can be argued as the 'safe(r)' choice, there remained considerable risk in pumping a couple of hundred million dollars into it given the (frankly) pathetic returns of Nemesis and the declining returns of the previous films (which themselves were pretty equally uncreative and un-risky anyway) in general.

Subjectivity over the content aside.

I think the revenues were pretty decent and let's not forget that they still invest into and market their new brand. That's the whole point, it's not old Trek anymore and that's why it has sold so well.
They did get away with copying NEM precisely of this new blockbuster framework which overshadowed the (copied) story defects. In an old Trek movie with a smaller budget it would have been easier to notice that this is NEM 2.0.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by canadianrosey

Samwise nailed it. Berman, Braga, and Paramount just pushed uninspired schlock down the public's throats because it kept the coin rolling. Three spinoffs running concurrently, weak movies... It was gruel for breakfast, gruel for lunch, gruel for supper, gruel for takeout, not very good gruel, and far too much of it.

They milked the cow until it practically fell over dead, and it made me so sick to watch that eventually, I stopped watching. All studios make tv shows and movies for money; that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that you could tell it was the only motivating factor left years ago until the Trek franchise ingloriously keeled over with Nemesis, leaving the fans wanting less. It shouldn't have been that way, but greed and arrogance are what they are.

You say greed and arrogance, I say bullsh*t. I would never describe any studio executive as greedy just because I don't like the implications of his choice. To pick my personal example, while I dislike the fact that ST09 is a cash cow I also consider it, as much as an outsider can judge this, as the best business decision Trek-wise available for the folks at Paramount.
So yeah, wouldn't hurt you to make your points in a less emotional and less argument-lacking fashion.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

I think the revenues were pretty decent and let's not forget that they still invest into and market their new brand. That's the whole point, it's not old Trek anymore and that's why it has sold so well.
They did get away with copying NEM precisely of this new blockbuster framework which overshadowed the (copied) story defects. In an old Trek movie with a smaller budget it would have been easier to notice that this is NEM 2.0.

Well, technically since Nemesis was a blatant and very bad remake of TWOK then if I were to subsribe to that claim then it would be TWOK 3.0 instead of Nemesis 2.0.

(Blame or praise Bennet/Meyer for creating the Trek film template they've ALL tried to emulate since TNG took over the movie reigns, whichever one 'feels right').

The advantage the 2009 film had over the last few was a much livelier and less plodding script, general energy, and having an actually talented director behind the scenes putting the parts together in a way that made them seem fresh and new. The revenues were (as far as I can guess from what I can put together) enough to not put the film in the red, but I doubt it was light years into the black either.

But Paramount will be betting that the sequel can improve on the performance of the first, given it's broad base of critical/public success. So as long as they don't go wild with the budget etc then that's a fair assumption since first sequels to such popular films do tend to do better.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

Well, technically since Nemesis was a blatant and very bad remake of TWOK then if I were to subsribe to that claim then it would be TWOK 3.0 instead of Nemesis 2.0.

(Blame or praise Bennet/Meyer for creating the Trek film template they've ALL tried to emulate since TNG took over the movie reigns, whichever one 'feels right').

The advantage the 2009 film had over the last few was a much livelier and less plodding script, general energy, and having an actually talented director behind the scenes putting the parts together in a way that made them seem fresh and new.

I partly agree, I think it did not matter much that Nero was Shinzon 2.0 aka Khan 3.0 because of JJA and not because of O&K's script. Let a lesser director film that script on a 50 million $ budget and you get something bad.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

I partly agree, I think it did not matter much that Nero was Shinzon 2.0 aka Khan 3.0 because of JJA and not because of O&K's script.

That's fair enough, but I'd personally think one would have to be also partially against the bulk of the writers of the other films, since the villain in them all has also had the shadow of Khan over their shoulders.

And none of them have come close to making them truly work. Even Nero didn't............none of them are as embarrassing as R'uafo of course but even at that, none of them work well...........though since the focus was (wisely) a little less directly on him it didn't derail the film as much as the others.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

Let a lesser director film that script on a 50 million $ budget and you get something bad.

Which in the years of the final couple of TNG era films, would have been the 'safe' and risk free choice for Paramount to have made, instead of investing in it more substantially (though the 2009 script would probably still have worked out better in the hands of even a lesser director than Nemesis would have been in the hands of even a good one, but we'll never really know) and one could say that about many a film though, not even restricting it to the realms of Trek.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

That's fair enough, but I'd personally think one would have to be also partially against the bulk of the writers of the other films, since the villain in them all has also had the shadow of Khan over their shoulders.

And none of them have come close to making them truly work. Even Nero didn't............none of them are as embarrassing as R'uafo of course but even at that, none of them work well...........though since the focus was (wisely) a little less directly on him it didn't derail the film as much as the others.

I don't see the similarities with Khan in the case of other villains.
Nero had a giant ship like Shinzon, he was out for revenge, the Romulans were fu*ked up like in NEM, it's just too much. But as you said, this storyline wasn't as relevant as in the previous movie and that's why it did not hurt as much.
It's nonetheless incredibly strange that the writers chose to copy the previous movie which has been a failure so bluntly in many respects. Perhaps my analysis was wrong and O&K have been and still are the risky variables in the equation.