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

"Brian Thorn" <bthorn64@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:m0ccr3pb9j6817evllv59pdo0so6onk7ln@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:42:44 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
> <kwicker1b_nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>>> The writers strike screwed up everyone's schedules? Delays don't mean
>>> a movie is doomed... look at "Titanic".
>
>>Then why not blame the strike instead of a lame expectation of getting
>>better revenue in the Summer than December? Sorry, the insider
explanation
>>is weak.
>
> Because they don't want to admit that the strike screwed up their
> plans (and thus make future strikes more likely)? This isn't rocket
> science, Ken...
>
> Brian

Of course they don't want to admit that. But it seemed like a) they could 
have come up with a more plausible aka not nearly so obviously
transparently 
lame excuse and b) why would a movie scheduled for a year away be delayed?

Don't they have the script done already?

-- Ken from Chicago