Investor as in a shareholder in Viacom.
Folks who dislike it focus on the "flash" and miss the subtance. Probably on purpose
That doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone want
to dislike it? Why wouldn't they see this substance
they are looking for if it is there?
Look, I don't think the majority of people that criticized the last movie as lacking in some way really expected something indistinguishable from TOS. I certainly didn't. But there is a "different" that feels "right" and one that doesn't. Many have said that in the end what we are talking about is "personal taste", and I'm willing to admit that is probably true. The popularity of something is determined by the cumulative "personal tastes" of the viewing public, and in this way nuTrek is inarguably a success.
But is there a differnt way to determine the "heart" of Star Trek? Something not measured in dollars? The essence of it without which it ceases to be itself? I have taken a stab at that by saying it is this thing Roddenberry started out to do -- Jonathan Swift in the 1960s, humanism as seen through the lens of 1960s optimism, commenting on the "human condition". I am sure there are other equally valid descriptions, and I know JJ Abrams did try to include some of this in his movie. I happen to think what he included was largely superficial and that at its heart ST XI was a story about revenge. Revenge of Nero. Revenge of Spock. Revenge of Kirk. That most certainly is about the human condition, but it also largely focuses on the negative and holds up as heroes people that are really not all that different from the villain. Once again -- that is a valid point to make, but in my opinion it isn't consistent with what has heretofore characterized Star Trek.