• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Shouldn't the "pro" reviewers be checking in by now?

Which is an improvement over last year's preliminary screenings which were universally lethal. Nobody here really believed that Paramount delayed the film for scheduling reasons, right?

I just checked TrekMovie.com.
The release-date was changed on February 13, 2008 over a month before the end of principal photography and many months before the 20-minutes-previews for the press.
http://trekmovie.com/2008/03/27/star-trek-wraps-principal-photography/

I (facetiously) suggest that the film was delayed because those who saw it in its initial form died, and your objection is that the delay was announced prior to the completion of principal photography? :lol:

Do you also make a beeping-sound when you backtrack like that?
 
I wonder if that dude realizes that 90 percent of san francisco was probably either wiped out due to earth quakes or destroyed in WWIII

In Star Trek IV, Sulu comments that skyline in 1990's Frisco aren't all that different than by the 23rd century. What happened? They built it up and tore it down again?

I took it to mean that from a few miles in the sky, at night, San Fransisco didn't look "that" different. He was making an abstract comparison and an off-hand remark, not a detailed analysis of the city's architecture. Big city, lots of lights, activity on the ground. He was coming at it from the POV of a guy from 300 years in the future who might have been expecting something much more alien than he was used to.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top