You're still not quite grasping the economic imperative. The shareholder is only one aspect of this relationship. To the extent that the simply wish to succeed, they must respect the tastes of their audience.
I understand the economic imperative just fine, thanks. And while "respect[ing] the tastes of their audience" is certainly helpful for success, it is not strictly required that they do so. They can choose to try something new and hope it works out.
That said, it is overwhelmingly clear that Abrams has "respect[ed] the taste of [his] audience". That he has not respected the tastes of a small minority of the audience does not obviate his overall success. And that's because he doesn't OWE any particular member of the audience anything other than a product to experience. And that remains the ONLY thing he, or any other producer of entertainment, owes the audience (and only for some form of compensation).
And those who promise entertainment in exchange for payment (e.g., musicians, jugglers, singers, hypnotists, magicians, popular writers) are indeed obligated to deliver what they promise. Should they fail to meet that obligation, their mandate of profit will not be met. Pure and simple.
As long as they provide an entertainment product, in exchange for compensation, they owe the audience nothing else. Certainly not individual satisfaction. They hope they provide satisfaction--they are not obligated in any way to ensure it. That is true whether it's a busker in the metro station or the next installment of Superman on the big screen.
No matter how fanatical one might be about a particular form of entertainment, "satisfaction is NOT guaranteed".