From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From Address: sdlitvin@earthlink.net   
   Subject: Re: Abrams' Trek Sequel To Be Released 29 June 2012   
      
   "Your Name"  wrote in message    
   news:your.name-1101101323220001@203-109-170-125.dial.dyn.ihug.co.nz:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Yeah, but this is a whole different universe.   
      
   It's like the Earth-1/Earth-2/Earth-3 business from DC Comics.   
   The superheroes didn't have the same outfits, or even the same secret    
   identities.   
      
   http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Flash_v1_123.jpg   
      
      
      
   --   
   --   
   Steven L.   
   sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net   
   Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.   
      
      
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp   
   --- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux   
    * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)