From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: your.name@isp.com (Your Name)
Subject: Re: Abrams' Trek Sequel To Be Released 29 June 2012
In article <4b49617c$0$2474$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, "Jaxtraw"
wrote:
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article ,
> > "Your Name" wrote:
> >
> >> "Anim8rFSK" wrote in message
> >> news:ANIM8Rfsk-43D540.13145609012010@news.dc1.easynews.com...
> >>> In article <1cOdnUo3W_X4C9XWnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> >>> "Steven L." wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Paramount has announced that "Star Trek 2," the sequel to Abrams'
> >>>> "Star Trek" film, will be released in theaters on 29 June 2012.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's the last weekend before the Fourth of July, which helps
> >>>> ticket sales--if Abrams can stay on schedule. (The schedule for
> >>>> his first film slipped by some six months.)
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, but I don't think that was his fault; from everything I've
> >>> heard, the film was done by the original release date.
> >>
> >> No doubt it was the studio idiots trying to get Kirk and Spock to be
> >> a female characters, the computer not to talk, ... plus another
> >> miliion more idotic changes. :-\
> >
> > Actually no. We kept *hoping* they were fixing things, stuff Abrams
> > had said during the shoot that he couldn't address in the script
> > because of a writer's strike, or add The Shat, or fix that
> > embarrassingly bad shot of the Big E sitting on the ground, but I'm
> > told they locked the film months before they released it and just sat
> > on it.
>
> And what, pray tell, was wrong with the beauty shot of the Ent under
> construction? Would have been better if they'd only been wise enough to ask
> you to do it, would it?
The original Enterprise (and Kirk's later ones) weren't constructed on
Earth and didn't have the ability to land / take off from a planet. It was
built in Space Dock.
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
* Origin: Ihug Ltd (1:2320/105.97)
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux
* Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)
|
