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

In article <lPqdnX7tAaEnqyvanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> "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 

Not a good one.

-- 
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.