Re: "Star Trek" movie pushed back to May '09

In article <p6WdnX7vNKR92SjanZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ken from
Chicago <kwicker1b_nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> "Invid Fan" <invid@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:140220082151204814%invid@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Possibly because another film has been delayed due to the strike and
is
> > taking it's place, and the next "sci fi blockbuster" slot in the
> > schedule is May. You have to look at the entire schedule to see what
> > reasons if any there are.
> 
> Then why make the lame excuse that the move was for more revenue?

Because you always put a good face on any business decision. 

> My complaint is less about the move, altho I'm not thrilled about a 
> half-year delay, but about the weak explanation for it. 

Ignore all pre-release press for every movie, then :)

-- 
Chris Mack      "Refugee, total ****. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan'         Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
                                     -'Deal/No Deal', CHESS