Then it would coincide with the 40th anniversary of Classic Trek's last
original aired TV episode - Turnabout Intruder - back on June 3rd, 1969.
This will be on a Wednesday next June. Few movies open on Wednesdays, only
when a holiday's (often Independence Day) placement on the calendar
effectively creates a longer box office weekend.

Of course, I realize one possible parallel to Star Trek XI and Turnabout
Intruder - both might prove to be the final official Star Trek project the
fans get for years.

My first reaction to the announced rescheduled release date was a nagging
uncertainty if I even want to see this movie at all.

John X. Grey.

In article <47b68e86$0$6148$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Edwin R. Haney"
<edhaney@roadrunner.com> wrote:

> Then it would coincide with the 40th anniversary of Classic Trek's last
> original aired TV episode - Turnabout Intruder - back on June 3rd, 1969.
> This will be on a Wednesday next June. Few movies open on Wednesdays, only
> when a holiday's (often Independence Day) placement on the calendar
> effectively creates a longer box office weekend.
>
> Of course, I realize one possible parallel to Star Trek XI and Turnabout
> Intruder - both might prove to be the final official Star Trek project the
> fans get for years.
>
> My first reaction to the announced rescheduled release date was a nagging
> uncertainty if I even want to see this movie at all.

With well over a year to go, they may simply cancel it entirely. :-)

"Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
news:170220081252360205%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
> In article <47b68e86$0$6148$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Edwin R. Haney"
> <edhaney@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
>> Then it would coincide with the 40th anniversary of Classic Trek's last
>> original aired TV episode - Turnabout Intruder - back on June 3rd, 1969.
>> This will be on a Wednesday next June. Few movies open on Wednesdays,
>> only
>> when a holiday's (often Independence Day) placement on the calendar
>> effectively creates a longer box office weekend.
>>
>> Of course, I realize one possible parallel to Star Trek XI and Turnabout
>> Intruder - both might prove to be the final official Star Trek project
>> the
>> fans get for years.
>>
>> My first reaction to the announced rescheduled release date was a nagging
>> uncertainty if I even want to see this movie at all.
>
> With well over a year to go, they may simply cancel it entirely. :-)

From what I've been hearing, the film is a laughing stock among Hollywood
insiders. According to one piece of half-way legitimate gossip, the only
thing it has going for it is Leonard Nimoy. And he ain't exactly skipping
through the streets in sheer bliss at being in the picture. Assuming this
thing is actually released, it will almost certainly be a certified
disaster. If it is actually a good film, it would be totally reversing the
current vibe in Hollywood about the film at present.

Kevin wrote:
> "Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
> news:170220081252360205%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
>> In article <47b68e86$0$6148$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Edwin R.
>> Haney" <edhaney@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Then it would coincide with the 40th anniversary of Classic Trek's
>>> last original aired TV episode - Turnabout Intruder - back on June
>>> 3rd, 1969. This will be on a Wednesday next June. Few movies open
>>> on Wednesdays, only
>>> when a holiday's (often Independence Day) placement on the calendar
>>> effectively creates a longer box office weekend.
>>>
>>> Of course, I realize one possible parallel to Star Trek XI and
>>> Turnabout Intruder - both might prove to be the final official Star
>>> Trek project the
>>> fans get for years.
>>>
>>> My first reaction to the announced rescheduled release date was a
>>> nagging uncertainty if I even want to see this movie at all.
>>
>> With well over a year to go, they may simply cancel it entirely.
>> :-)
>
> From what I've been hearing, the film is a laughing stock among
> Hollywood insiders. According to one piece of half-way legitimate
> gossip, the only thing it has going for it is Leonard Nimoy. And he
> ain't exactly skipping through the streets in sheer bliss at being in
> the picture. Assuming this thing is actually released, it will
> almost certainly be a certified disaster. If it is actually a good
> film, it would be totally reversing the current vibe in Hollywood
> about the film at present.

Well, at least Anybody's going to be pleased then.


Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

In article <47b7bbf6$0$10298$815e3792@news.qwest.net>,
"Kevin" <webman6@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
> news:170220081252360205%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
> > In article <47b68e86$0$6148$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Edwin R. Haney"
> > <edhaney@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Then it would coincide with the 40th anniversary of Classic Trek's last
> >> original aired TV episode - Turnabout Intruder - back on June 3rd, 1969.
> >> This will be on a Wednesday next June. Few movies open on Wednesdays,
> >> only
> >> when a holiday's (often Independence Day) placement on the calendar
> >> effectively creates a longer box office weekend.
> >>
> >> Of course, I realize one possible parallel to Star Trek XI and Turnabout
> >> Intruder - both might prove to be the final official Star Trek project
> >> the
> >> fans get for years.
> >>
> >> My first reaction to the announced rescheduled release date was a nagging
> >> uncertainty if I even want to see this movie at all.
> >
> > With well over a year to go, they may simply cancel it entirely. :-)
>
> From what I've been hearing, the film is a laughing stock among Hollywood
> insiders. According to one piece of half-way legitimate gossip, the only
> thing it has going for it is Leonard Nimoy. And he ain't exactly skipping
> through the streets in sheer bliss at being in the picture. Assuming this
> thing is actually released, it will almost certainly be a certified
> disaster. If it is actually a good film, it would be totally reversing the
> current vibe in Hollywood about the film at present.

Oh please - spare us your delusions

"Kevin" <webman6@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47b7bbf6$0$10298$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
> From what I've been hearing, the film is a laughing stock among Hollywood
> insiders. According to one piece of half-way legitimate gossip, the only
> thing it has going for it is Leonard Nimoy. And he ain't exactly skipping
> through the streets in sheer bliss at being in the picture. Assuming this
> thing is actually released, it will almost certainly be a certified
> disaster. If it is actually a good film, it would be totally reversing
> the current vibe in Hollywood about the film at present.

Hmmm. Is it possible to give us some type of link to this gossip? Sounds
quite...fascinating [to use a phrase].

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
news:47b7beed$0$8421$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Well, at least Anybody's going to be pleased then.

I don't think so - I [hope] that Anybody wants the best for Trek.

The problem is, we haven't seen much of that these past number of years...

In article <47b7c77a$0$25020$607ed4bc@cv.net>, "Snake"
<fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote:

> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
> news:47b7beed$0$8421$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> > Well, at least Anybody's going to be pleased then.
>
> I don't think so - I [hope] that Anybody wants the best for Trek.
>
> The problem is, we haven't seen much of that these past number of years...

Yep. I want Star Trek to remain "Star Trek" and not be changed into
something that is barely recognisable that reuses the name. If that
means Paramount don't make a movie because there's not enough money in
doing so, then so be it. There's still plenty of books and games in the
franchise yet - it doesn't HAVE to be on-screen (big or small) to keep
going.

Anybody wrote:
> In article <47b7c77a$0$25020$607ed4bc@cv.net>, "Snake"
> <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
>> news:47b7beed$0$8421$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>> Well, at least Anybody's going to be pleased then.
>>
>> I don't think so - I [hope] that Anybody wants the best for Trek.
>>
>> The problem is, we haven't seen much of that these past number of
>> years...
>
> Yep. I want Star Trek to remain "Star Trek" and not be changed into
> something that is barely recognisable that reuses the name. If that
> means Paramount don't make a movie because there's not enough money in
> doing so, then so be it. There's still plenty of books and games in
> the franchise yet - it doesn't HAVE to be on-screen (big or small) to
> keep going.

Like I said...

In article <47b7c70e$0$25064$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
"Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote:

> "Kevin" <webman6@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:47b7bbf6$0$10298$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
> > From what I've been hearing, the film is a laughing stock among Hollywood
> > insiders. According to one piece of half-way legitimate gossip, the only
> > thing it has going for it is Leonard Nimoy. And he ain't exactly skipping
> > through the streets in sheer bliss at being in the picture. Assuming this
> > thing is actually released, it will almost certainly be a certified
> > disaster. If it is actually a good film, it would be totally reversing
> > the current vibe in Hollywood about the film at present.
>
> Hmmm. Is it possible to give us some type of link to this gossip? Sounds
> quite...fascinating [to use a phrase].

Sounds like he was talking to his imaginary friend again.

"Warchild" <bob@bob.com> wrote in message
news:bob-843621.11190917022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <47b7c70e$0$25064$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
> "Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> "Kevin" <webman6@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:47b7bbf6$0$10298$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>> > From what I've been hearing, the film is a laughing stock among
>> > Hollywood
>> > insiders. According to one piece of half-way legitimate gossip, the
>> > only
>> > thing it has going for it is Leonard Nimoy. And he ain't exactly
>> > skipping
>> > through the streets in sheer bliss at being in the picture. Assuming
>> > this
>> > thing is actually released, it will almost certainly be a certified
>> > disaster. If it is actually a good film, it would be totally reversing
>> > the current vibe in Hollywood about the film at present.
>>
>> Hmmm. Is it possible to give us some type of link to this gossip?
>> Sounds
>> quite...fascinating [to use a phrase].
>
> Sounds like he was talking to his imaginary friend again.

I'm sorry, but I can't identify my two little gossip mavens. They both work
in Hollywood, in the entertainment business, and have for many years. We
keep in touch on the phone and email often. These girls have contacts all
over the place. They know, have worked with or worked for just about
everybody at one time or another since the late 1980's. If they aren't
quietly eavesdropping on a conversation during lunch, they stay up with all
the latest dirt on the cocktail circuit.

Plus, their kids go to school with a lot of celebuspawn. So they get a lot
of good stuff that way too.

They really are incorrigible. According to the latest, best source gossip,
the Star Trek movie is pretty much the punch line for many jokes in the
business.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:47:01 -0800, "Kevin" <webman6@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Plus, their kids go to school with a lot of celebuspawn.

Celebuspawn. I like that.

--
Gizka

In article <47be1b89$0$10296$815e3792@news.qwest.net>,
"Kevin" <webman6@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Warchild" <bob@bob.com> wrote in message
> news:bob-843621.11190917022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> > In article <47b7c70e$0$25064$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
> > "Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Kevin" <webman6@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:47b7bbf6$0$10298$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
> >> > From what I've been hearing, the film is a laughing stock among
> >> > Hollywood
> >> > insiders. According to one piece of half-way legitimate gossip, the
> >> > only
> >> > thing it has going for it is Leonard Nimoy. And he ain't exactly
> >> > skipping
> >> > through the streets in sheer bliss at being in the picture. Assuming
> >> > this
> >> > thing is actually released, it will almost certainly be a certified
> >> > disaster. If it is actually a good film, it would be totally reversing
> >> > the current vibe in Hollywood about the film at present.
> >>
> >> Hmmm. Is it possible to give us some type of link to this gossip?
> >> Sounds
> >> quite...fascinating [to use a phrase].
> >
> > Sounds like he was talking to his imaginary friend again.
>
> I'm sorry, but I can't identify my two little gossip mavens. They both work
> in Hollywood, in the entertainment business, and have for many years. We
> keep in touch on the phone and email often. These girls have contacts all
> over the place. They know, have worked with or worked for just about
> everybody at one time or another since the late 1980's. If they aren't
> quietly eavesdropping on a conversation during lunch, they stay up with all
> the latest dirt on the cocktail circuit.
>
> Plus, their kids go to school with a lot of celebuspawn. So they get a lot
> of good stuff that way too.
>
> They really are incorrigible. According to the latest, best source gossip,
> the Star Trek movie is pretty much the punch line for many jokes in the
> business.

Sorry, that is just not good enough. Claiming to 'know somebody who
knows somebody' just means that *you* don't know yourself.

And guess what, come May of next year, we all will know, and then what
use will you be?

"Warchild" <bob@bob.com> wrote in message
news:bob-3FF524.22050421022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <47be1b89$0$10296$815e3792@news.qwest.net>,
> "Kevin" <webman6@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Warchild" <bob@bob.com> wrote in message
>> news:bob-843621.11190917022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> > In article <47b7c70e$0$25064$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
>> > "Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Kevin" <webman6@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:47b7bbf6$0$10298$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>> >> > From what I've been hearing, the film is a laughing stock among
>> >> > Hollywood
>> >> > insiders. According to one piece of half-way legitimate gossip, the
>> >> > only
>> >> > thing it has going for it is Leonard Nimoy. And he ain't exactly
>> >> > skipping
>> >> > through the streets in sheer bliss at being in the picture.
>> >> > Assuming
>> >> > this
>> >> > thing is actually released, it will almost certainly be a certified
>> >> > disaster. If it is actually a good film, it would be totally
>> >> > reversing
>> >> > the current vibe in Hollywood about the film at present.
>> >>
>> >> Hmmm. Is it possible to give us some type of link to this gossip?
>> >> Sounds
>> >> quite...fascinating [to use a phrase].
>> >
>> > Sounds like he was talking to his imaginary friend again.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I can't identify my two little gossip mavens. They both
>> work
>> in Hollywood, in the entertainment business, and have for many years. We
>> keep in touch on the phone and email often. These girls have contacts
>> all
>> over the place. They know, have worked with or worked for just about
>> everybody at one time or another since the late 1980's. If they aren't
>> quietly eavesdropping on a conversation during lunch, they stay up with
>> all
>> the latest dirt on the cocktail circuit.
>>
>> Plus, their kids go to school with a lot of celebuspawn. So they get a
>> lot
>> of good stuff that way too.
>>
>> They really are incorrigible. According to the latest, best source
>> gossip,
>> the Star Trek movie is pretty much the punch line for many jokes in the
>> business.
>
> Sorry, that is just not good enough. Claiming to 'know somebody who
> knows somebody' just means that *you* don't know yourself.
>
> And guess what, come May of next year, we all will know, and then what
> use will you be?

Can any of really know anything? I don't "know somebody who knows
somebody". I know two friends who happen to work and live in Hollywood.
Well, only one of them actually lives in Hollywood. But it's close enough.
And some of the stuff they "hear" or see or happen to find out, somehow, is
pretty wild. But, it's really alright to see the gossip side of the
business in a bright light of skepticism. Even my two friends have to
sometimes just shake their heads in amazement at some of the stuff they
uncover.

In any event, just remember that it all won't matter after 2036.