I saw Nemesis. It was far better than some of the prior Star Trek movies... but that doesn't mean it wasn't a retread.
Have you ever had one of those days where you thought about the totality of things that human beings can (legally) pay to do in order to entertain themselves, only to find it all either too boring or too expensive? Well, imagine if you had access to the whole universe but couldn't find a way to make it entertaining. That's the Star Trek universe, apparently.
Think about it. They could go anywhere, do anything, and create any reality they want, but they can't entertain us on a holodeck without it being annoying.
What's their idea of a light, entertaining, humorous moment? They have the android sing songs or do other things that make it abundantly clear that it isn't and never will be human. (Is this a form of roboracism? How come we don't get to see Geordi LaForge singing Camptown Races instead?)
So, is this the end of the movie franchise? I hate saying that they should pack it in for a decade or so, but lots of others are suggesting the idea. It's worth remembering, however, that the first Star Trek movie didn't do particularly well -- and boy, did it suck. One woman was bald, while the rest of the cast wore toupees and wigs. The bald one was the sexiest, too.
Is Star Trek too old? I doubt it. After all, there's another old franchise that is doing just fine. Maybe it's just a temporary blip. Maybe it's a lack of interest in all but the original cast, but if that were the case, why does Bond still work? Frankly, Bond has it easier -- there isn't this need to launch a successful TV series in order to change the cast.
Think about Star Trek movies without pre-defined casts. Would the movies do better with bigger stars? Would they do worse because it wouldn't be Star Trek anymore? Is the answer to recast the original crew with new actors, and have Matt Damon play Kirk?!
Could anything work -- or is Roddenberry's universe just too small for the stars?