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

"David B" <bothecat3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:47B64C3D.54BC7ED9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Ken from Chicago 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?
>
> Because they have a thin schedule for 2009.They need another big movie
for 
> next
> year.
>
>>
>> Don't they have the script done already?
>
> Yes.
>

Now that makes more far more sense.

Once again leave it to a fan to outthink the execs.

-- Ken from Chicago