Well first off all a movie has to make at least twice it's budget just to break even, anyone who has read anything about how the movie business works knows that. Second most blockbusters like ITD spend more then $100 million on adds, so you have to factor that in as well. So when you factor all of that in you have a company that answers to stock holders producing a product for over $200 million that either just barely broke even or may have lost money. Do you really think that is the type of return they were looking for, just barely making a profit once home video sales were factored in? Why do you think ever Hollywood insider talks about ITD as a dissapointment for Paramount? Why do you think Paramount got rid of the people who worked on ITD, and why do you think all of their statements about the next movie seem to be designed to assure fans that it will be nothing like ITD if they were so happy with the return they got for something that cost them out of pocket at least $300 million? because for the amount of money they spent they needed it to be a huge hit, not just break even.
Remember back in the day when Star Trek wasn't cool? Well back then when they were not spending more then $30 on the movies Nemisis was the only one to come in at a loss and even the movies that were seen as bombs made between 3 and 12 times their production budget at the box office. Now Paramount is having to pay for top talent behind the camera and the films are not cheap to make any more because of a lack of standing sets and they are just reaching the breaking even point, believe me Paramount wants something to change big time. We live in a world where the $15 million film the King's Speech that was not part of a franchise that had a loyal fan base and didn't have ads everywhere grossed $414 million world wide, plus home media. Do you really think Paramount's goal when they spent more then ten times that amount was to just barely pull ahead of it at the box office. Not to mention that kind of money isn't much for summer blockbusters these days. Man of Steel grossed $200 million more then that and Warner Brothers' reaction was to add Batman and Wonder Woman to the sequel and get Nolan off of the project in order to boost it's box office appeal.
In modern Hollywood it take more then passing the production budget to make a profit and Paramount is not acting like a studio who is happy with how their last film did at the box office.
I think if they returned to Star Trek's heart and soul and found writers and directors who could capture that without giving up action scenes they would find the box office take doing better. The least they should do is try a director who is used to working on TV or low budget films so that they can bring the next film in for less then $190 million, that is an insane price tag for a Star trek movie. Star Trek will never be Star Wars, it has always done better on Tv then at the movies and it doesn't do well when release against other big summer movies, if Paramount wants to make any money off of this franchise they need to come to terms with those facts and adjust the way these movies are produced to reflect that.