Look Out!!! | Report this post to moderator
By: Irving Morrell (Odo's file, contact) @ 16:38:41 on Jul 23, 2008

She's venting. Must mean she's going through an early pon farr phase again.

Reply

Quote

Maybe? | Report this post to moderator
By: Ralphis (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:35:30 on Jul 23, 2008

In no am I saying this is what I think will happen or should happen, nor do I necessarily want it to happen; what if this is one big gag? What if The Shat does have some sort of cameo in it? For whatever reason they just want to surprise the viewers. I know it doesn't make sense to have a name like William Shatner in your flick and not promote it as such, especially with a role such as Captain Kirk, but one thing I noticed about the world we live in is that NOTHING makes sense these days.

--------

Reply

Quote

• RE: Maybe? | Report this post to moderator
  By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:18:57 on Jul 23, 2008

  Quote:
  what if this is one big gag?
  
  With the hundreds of millions of dollars invested into this film, would they be risking its image by a "gag" like this?
  
  Quote:
  For whatever reason they just want to surprise the viewers.
  
  Someone, especially Shatner with his webcam, would have blabbed if he was in it. And if he was, what would be the reason to hide it? Maybe the simplest possibility is fact: we haven't heard anything because he is NOT in it. J.J. knows how to make a good film now, he isn't going to muck it up to make a minority of the die-hard fan base happy.
  
  --------
  
  -- Steve
  "If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: Maybe? | Report this post to moderator
    By: Ralphis (Odo's file, contact) @ 03:24:59 on Jul 24, 2008

    Do I really have to start using those little smiley faces when I write something sarcastic?
    
    --------
    
    

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

Despite the flaming, backbiting, pissing contests and other immature.. | Report this post to moderator
By: Sam Cogley (Odo's file, contact) @ 11:54:02 on Jul 23, 2008

...behavior in this thread, there is only one real question:

Who gives a flying f**k what Ms. Blalock thinks of the new movie or who is in it?

That is all, carry on with your 3rd grade playground BS.

--------

Growing up leads to growing old and then to dying,
And dying to me dont sound like all that much fun...
-John Mellencamp

Political tags-such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth-are never basic criteria.
The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
-Robert A. Heinlein

Samuel T. Cogley, Attorney at Law

Reply

Quote

• Who's Who Opinions | Report this post to moderator
  By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:21:18 on Jul 23, 2008

  Quote from Sam Cogley:
  Who gives a flying f**k what Ms. Blalock thinks of the new movie or who is in it?
  
  
  Previous articles posted on this site were selected for the opinions of former Star Trek actors (e.g. Robert Picardo), or just to follow the current projects of franchise alum. There's a precedent for that type of "news."
  
  As others here can recall, Jolene Blalock played a central character in the last Trek series.
  
  
  --------
  
  
  

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: Who's Who Opinions | Report this post to moderator
    By: Sam Cogley (Odo's file, contact) @ 13:37:10 on Jul 23, 2008

    I know why Gustavo posts it, but that has nothing to do with why we should care what she thinks. She was a central character in the last show - one that had dismal ratings and was canceled early. So what?
    
    --------
    
    Growing up leads to growing old and then to dying,
    And dying to me dont sound like all that much fun...
    -John Mellencamp
    
    Political tags-such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth-are never basic criteria.
    The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
    -Robert A. Heinlein
    
    Samuel T. Cogley, Attorney at Law

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

    • RE: Who's Who Opinions | Report this post to moderator
      By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:07:54 on Jul 23, 2008

      Quote from Sam Cogley:
      I know why Gustavo posts it, but that has nothing to do with why we should care what she thinks.
      
      
      Examine your interrogatives.
      
      If you do know why those type of articles are posted here, then you must know the larger "who" in "Who cares?" about franchise alum.
      
      
      --------
      
      
      

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

      • RE: Who's Who Opinions | Report this post to moderator
        By: Sam Cogley (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:17:29 on Jul 23, 2008 | (2)

        I know why people pay attention to celeb gossip, too. That doesn't keep me from being quite positive that it's a bunch of crap. The childish, immature postings that have flooded this thread only serve to reinforce my position.
        
        If Ms. Blalock was involved with the film and had access to the script and/or filmed scenes, then I would be interested in what she has to say. Right now she's just spilling BS out of her (admittedly perky) ass.
        
        --------
        
        Growing up leads to growing old and then to dying,
        And dying to me dont sound like all that much fun...
        -John Mellencamp
        
        Political tags-such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth-are never basic criteria.
        The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
        -Robert A. Heinlein
        
        Samuel T. Cogley, Attorney at Law

        
        

        Reply

        Quote

        • RE: Who's Who Opinions | Report this post to moderator
          By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:47:40 on Jul 23, 2008 | (1)

          Quote from Sam Cogley:
          That doesn't keep me from being quite positive that it's a bunch of crap. The childish, immature postings that have flooded this thread only serve to reinforce my position.
          
          
          Did gossip about Trek alum ever warrant your antagonistic use of "Shatner-bater", for example?
          
          
          --------
          
          
          

          
          

          Reply

          Quote

          • RE: Who's Who Opinions | Report this post to moderator
            By: Sam Cogley (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:01:09 on Jul 23, 2008

            The childish, immature and stupid "teh movie will be epic fail without teh Shatnerz!" posts and threads which flooded this board for a while were ample reason for me to invent the term "Shatnerbater."
            
            --------
            
            Growing up leads to growing old and then to dying,
            And dying to me dont sound like all that much fun...
            -John Mellencamp
            
            Political tags-such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth-are never basic criteria.
            The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
            -Robert A. Heinlein
            
            Samuel T. Cogley, Attorney at Law

            
            

            Reply

            Quote

            • RE: Who's Who Opinions | Report this post to moderator
              By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:59:48 on Jul 23, 2008

              Quote from Sam Cogley:
              The childish, immature and stupid "teh movie will be epic fail without teh Shatnerz!" posts and threads which flooded this board for a while were ample reason for me to invent the term "Shatnerbater."
              
              
              Note that those pissed responses from Shatner fans are typically launched at the film(makers), which is considered fair game in these forums. Meanwhile, the stalking Shatner-fan bashers will spontaneously launch into personal stabbing without provocation.
              
              Which of these is the really stupid behavior?
              
              Now with Blalock's pro-Shatner comment, the same knee-jerk peanut gallery is howling, "Who gives a flying f**k what Ms. Blalock thinks?", when there's nothing ridiculous about her opinion or the report of it here.
              
              
              --------
              
              
              

              
              

              Reply

              Quote

              • RE: Who's Who Opinions | Report this post to moderator
                By: Kamen Rider Blade (Odo's file, contact) @ 19:12:37 on Jul 23, 2008

                Given that the film is still about 10 months away yet, and we've still seen virtually nothing, I'd have to say that the people having a hissy fit that the movie is definitely going to suck without the presence of William Shatner are the ones who are being stupid.
                
                I will say, though, that neither behavior is necessarily mature (and I do admit that I've done my fair share of making remarks against the Shatner obsessed), but then, this is the internet. ;-)
                
                --------
                
                "Oh relax, Cupcake. It was a joke."- James T. Kirk

                
                

                Reply

                Quote

                • RE: Who's Who Opinions | Report this post to moderator
                  By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 19:35:19 on Jul 23, 2008

                  Quote from Kamen Rider Blade:
                  I'd have to say that the people having a hissy fit that the movie is definitely going to suck without the presence of William Shatner are the ones who are being stupid.
                  
                  
                  Dissing the film(maker) choices is fair game, even as a purely fanatical response.
                  
                  It would be nothing less than childishly hypocritical for you to persecute others here for saying "Abrams word isn't worth a shit!", but then yourself turn around and righteously hiss "Blalock's word isn't worth a shit!"
                  
                  
                  --------
                  
                  
                  

                  
                  

                  Reply

                  Quote

30 Year-Old Mental Retardation | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:44:39 on Jul 23, 2008

quote from cdydatzigs:
Hey, I learn from the best.....


And again, you're not cognizant of how you initiate the ad hominem assault.

This is part of your inability to learn even very common and basic things.


--------

Reply

Quote

• RE: 30 Year-Old Mental Retardation | Report this post to moderator
  By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:24:27 on Jul 23, 2008

  Quote:
  This is part of your inability to learn even very common and basic things.
  
  
  
  --------
  
  -- Steve
  "If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: 30 Year-Old Mental Retardation | Report this post to moderator
    By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:55:22 on Jul 23, 2008

    
    Are you now confessing ignorance of an asteroid impact that killed every land creature of over 23-kilograms in weight, including mammals?
    
    That's typical of your mammoth stupidity.
    
    
    --------
    
    
    

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

    • RE: 30 Year-Old Mental Retardation | Report this post to moderator
      By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 10:53:29 on Jul 23, 2008

      It's a deceased Tyrannasaurus Rex. Open your eyes dumb fuck.
      
      --------
      
      -- Steve
      "If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

      • RE: 30 Year-Old Mental Retardation | Report this post to moderator
        By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 11:41:19 on Jul 23, 2008

        Quote from cdydatzigs:
        It's a deceased Tyrannasaurus Rex. Open your eyes dumb fuck.
        
        
        Uh-huh, and that's relevant... how? (You can't even spell it.)
        
        My username here is derived from TSO/E-REXX.
        
        You readily argue in profound ignorance, as that's your lifelong condition.
        
        
        --------
        
        The ASUS Sneak Attack -- Linux Mobos
        
        The most interesting story the media is downplaying is the ASUS announcement that it will have a ROM boot chip on all its motherboards, which will boot Linux instantly on start-up.
        
        
        Get PCLinuxOS
        

        
        

        Reply

        Quote

        • RE: 30 Year-Old Mental Retardation | Report this post to moderator
          By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:12:15 on Jul 23, 2008

          Quote:
          My username here is derived from TSO/E-REXX.
          
          That would explain your addiction to the Thesaurus and why you are probably 400 lbs...
          
          --------
          
          -- Steve
          "If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.

          
          

          Reply

          Quote

          • RE: 30 Year-Old Mental Retardation | Report this post to moderator
            By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:30:49 on Jul 23, 2008

            Quote from cdydatzigs:
            That would explain your addiction to the Thesaurus and why you are probably 400 lbs...
            
            
            As always, your non-sequitur boggle is just one remove from the adolescent "I know you are, but what am I?"
            
            
            --------
            
            
            

            
            

            Reply

            Quote

Painting the kettle black.. errr, Blalock | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:27:42 on Jul 23, 2008

Quote:
...your immediate agenda is to assault members of this community.

Hey, I learn from the best.....

--------

-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.

Reply

Quote

Zombie Assault | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:24:04 on Jul 23, 2008

Quote from cdydatzigs:
I needed a good laugh this morning.


Once again, instead of contributing to the site or participating in topical discussion, your immediate agenda is to assault members of this community.


--------

Reply

Quote

Jolene, Jolene, Jolene.... | Report this post to moderator
By: Mad_Jasper (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:19:57 on Jul 23, 2008

How do you expect us to take you seriously when we can't find ANY full-frontal nudity shots of you on the Internet?

--------

Reply

Quote

[giggle] | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:08:24 on Jul 23, 2008

Hehe, I don't know what's more funny. That a Shatner apologist saw this article as a reason to come out of hiding and start posting again? Or that he titled his post "There you go..." as if Jolene Blalock was the final peice of the "why he should be in the film" puzzle, that we ALL needed to see to be convinced! I needed a good laugh this morning.

--------

-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.

Reply

Quote

• RE: [giggle] | Report this post to moderator
  By: StillKirok (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:40:54 on Jul 23, 2008

  Shatner apologist? There's nothing to apologize for, since Shatner didn't do anything wrong. You should look up the word apologist.
  
  Blalock's opinion is no more meaningful than anyone else's, but the fact remains that she has the same attitude many people are going to have, which is, "why the hell isn't Shatner in this movie?"
  
  Abrams blew it on this one, and the Shatner debacle will be a shadow that hangs over this movie.
  
  Of course, I doubt Abrams cares, since he has been using Shatner's name all along to promote his film.
  
  

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: [giggle] | Report this post to moderator
    By: Kamen Rider Blade (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:51:04 on Jul 23, 2008

    Quote:
    
    Abrams blew it on this one, and the Shatner debacle will be a shadow that hangs over this movie.
    
    
    Sort of like how you (apparently) blew Shatner?
    
    It has to affect more than a couple of people (i.e. yourself and Jolene Blalock) for it to be a "debacle".
    
    --------
    
    "Oh relax, Cupcake. It was a joke."- James T. Kirk

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

    • RE: [giggle] | Report this post to moderator
      By: lnf3 (Odo's file, contact) @ 00:06:40 on Jan 12, 2009 | (1)

      Quote:
      Quote:
      Abrams blew it on this one, and the Shatner debacle will be a shadow that hangs over this movie.
      
      
      Sort of like how you (apparently) blew Shatner?
      
      It has to affect more than a couple of people (i.e. yourself and Jolene Blalock) for it to be a "debacle".
      
      You fall all over yourself to defend Abram's film, so by your own standards, you "blow Abrams". You're the last one to talk about anyone or anything, hypocrite.

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

The Needs of The One... | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:02:20 on Jul 23, 2008

Quote from Jolene Blalock:
If Leonard Nimoy is in it, shouldn't William Shatner be in it?


Alas, fair maiden, Abrams says Shatner didn't want just a cameo role.



Blalock at the New York Comic Convention, 19 April 2008


--------

Reply

Quote

• RE: The Needs of The One... | Report this post to moderator
  By: StillKirok (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:43:32 on Jul 23, 2008

  How would Abrams know that Shatner didn't want a cameo role, when he never spoke to him directly? From an interview that came out well after Shatner was told (by NIMOY, not Abrams) that he wasn't in the movie? Abrams never even bothered to propose an offer or agenda that would include Shatner. He just lied and used his name. Whether Shatner would have said no to a cameo behind closed doors is irrelevant, since Abrams never bothered to even talk to Shatner. He didn't even have the balls to turn him down directly.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: The Needs of The One... | Report this post to moderator
    By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 13:37:41 on Jul 23, 2008

    Quote from StillKirok:
    Whether Shatner would have said no to a cameo behind closed doors is irrelevant, since Abrams never bothered to even talk to Shatner.
    
    
    Public statements from Shatner and Abrams contradict that argument.
    
    In at least one radio interview, I've heard Shatner say he spoke directly to Abrams "several times". And Abrams says, "[Shatner] said to me he didn't want to do a cameo."
    
    This indicates they did speak about that specific issue.
    
    
    --------
    
    
    

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

    • RE: The Needs of The One... | Report this post to moderator
      By: Kamen Rider Blade (Odo's file, contact) @ 16:53:05 on Jul 23, 2008

      Now, now. Don't you know that it's lies. ALL LIES, I tells ye! ;-)
      
      --------
      
      "Oh relax, Cupcake. It was a joke."- James T. Kirk

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

• RE: The Needs of The One... | Report this post to moderator
  By: etsjedi (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:11:52 on Jul 23, 2008

  Well, given the fact that the first role I have heard she is in is a straight to dvd sequel of a average scifi film.
  Still, she did say that she has not read the script. WHAT!?
  You mean that the guarded script should be sent out to every person who has ever worked on a STAR TREK series?
  She does not appear to have paid attention to any of the interviews from the writers or Abrams or Nimoy as to why Shatner is not in it.
  Still, she is nice eye candy!

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

Whoo-hoo! | Report this post to moderator
By: dark_mr_fripperton (Odo's file, contact) @ 07:48:09 on Jul 23, 2008

Looks like someone is bucking for a "Boston Legal" guest role!

Reply

Quote

There you go... | Report this post to moderator
By: StillKirok (Odo's file, contact) @ 05:45:20 on Jul 23, 2008 | (1)

It's such common sense that pretty much anyone who knows anything about Star Trek will be asking the same question--why isn't Shatner in the movie?

That's because it's so obvious that he should have been in the movie that it's just what is expected. Dumb move Abrams. A lot of people besides her will be disappointed.

Reply

Quote

• RE: There you go... | Report this post to moderator
  By: critch (Odo's file, contact) @ 07:27:29 on Jul 23, 2008

  Are you still here?
  
  Common sense dictates that a man pushing 80 whose character already died on screen and was buried on screen isn't going to magically come back to life just to make happy a tiny subsection of fans that were going to see it anyway.
  
  Paramount's doing a good enough job of trying to kill this franchise, we don't need your help.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: There you go... | Report this post to moderator
    By: StillKirok (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:46:34 on Jul 23, 2008

    The whole Kirk is dead argument is one of the dumbest lines of thinking by the desperate Shatner bashers.
    
    You are all regulars of this site. You know Nimoy is in the movie. You know the movie is about some guy time travelling back and trying to erase Kirk at different points in history, and you know that Nimoy/Spock is going to be travelling in different eras trying to stop Kirk from dying. Like it really is THAT hard to have Spock prevent the death in Generations while he's preventing other deaths of Kirk.
    
    It's like some of you people are so desperate to stop Shatner from being in this movie that you are being purposefully thick in the head.

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

    • RE: There you go... | Report this post to moderator
      By: Dan1701A (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:36:57 on Jul 24, 2008

      Quote:
      The whole Kirk is dead argument is one of the dumbest lines of thinking by the desperate Shatner bashers.
      
      You are all regulars of this site. You know Nimoy is in the movie. You know the movie is about some guy time travelling back and trying to erase Kirk at different points in history, and you know that Nimoy/Spock is going to be travelling in different eras trying to stop Kirk from dying. Like it really is THAT hard to have Spock prevent the death in Generations while he's preventing other deaths of Kirk.
      
      It's like some of you people are so desperate to stop Shatner from being in this movie that you are being purposefully thick in the head.
      
      
      Ok, I think I've stood on the sidelines on this one long enough.
      
      I've said before that I don't really care whether or not Shatner is in this film, so long as his inclusion/exclusion serves the story that is being told. That being said, I agree with you that a scenario similar to the one you've described would be a reasonable way to erase Kirk's death in Generations.
      
      My question to you is this: wouldn't such a scenario (as you have outlined) merely leave Shatner with a possible cameo near the end of the film? And if so, reports are that Shatner turned down a cameo...wanting a much larger role. If that is true, then what else was Abrams supposed to do? Risk ruining the story they have developed to resurrect a character, while beloved, died onscreen? Sorry, but I don't think so.
      
      The problem here is that we don't really know what is going on. Both sides are talking but not really saying much. What's the truth? Who really knows? Maybe once the film is released, we'll find out what really happened. Until then, it's all pure speculation.
      
      One more thing...and I'm not ripping on you personally, StillKirok...I'm really getting tired of people saying that Abrams lied about wanting Shatner in the movie and trying to work him into the story. This is the same crap that liberals have been saying about Bush and Iraq. I'm so over it!!! None of you know beyond reasonable doubt whether Abrams has lied about this! None of us really know what took place behind the scenes. You all are basing your opinions (as none of us have the facts) on what Shatner and Abrams have said. It's pretty clear to me that they have different opinions on the subject.
      
      The bottom line is this: if Abrams offered to resurrect Kirk (as you've described) and offered Shatner a cameo and he turned it down, then it's on Shatner. Period! End of story! Let's move on!

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

    • RE: There you go... | Report this post to moderator
      By: Kamen Rider Blade (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:55:11 on Jul 23, 2008

      Your whole argument is one of the dumbest lines of thinking by the desperate Shatner-baters.
      
      It's like you are so desperate to have Shatner in this movie that you are purposefully taking in his thick "head".
      
      --------
      
      "Oh relax, Cupcake. It was a joke."- James T. Kirk

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

• RE: There you go... | Report this post to moderator
  By: prometheus 59650 (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 07:23:04 on Jul 23, 2008

  Quote:
  It's such common sense that pretty much anyone who knows anything about Star Trek will be asking the same question--why isn't Shatner in the movie?
  
  Because Kirk is dead.
  
  Perhaps you missed that film.
  
  As for Blalock, I'd not pay much heed to the advice of someone who couldn't act their way out of a wet paper sack.
  
  --------
  
  "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture." ---Pastor Ray Mummert speaking of those who favor Darwinian Evolution over Intelligent Design.
  
  "If this is your God, he's not very impressive. He has so many psychological problems; he's so insecure. He demands worship every seven days. He goes out and creates faulty Humans and then blames them for his own mistakes. He's a pretty poor excuse for a Supreme Being." ---Gene Roddenberry

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

Star Trek community says... | Report this post to moderator
By: Rorschach (Odo's file, contact) @ 03:43:12 on Jul 23, 2008

Star Trek community says Jolene Blalock should mind her own business.

--------


"This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny that feeds them to dogs. It's us. Only us."

Reply

Quote

• RE: Star Trek community says... | Report this post to moderator
  By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 03:34:30 on Jul 24, 2008

  Quote from Rorschach:
  Star Trek community says Jolene Blalock should mind her own business.
  
  
  Regardless of what Blalock has to say, she's as relevant to the Star Trek community as any other franchise alum.
  
  
  --------
  
  
  

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

• RE: Star Trek community says... | Report this post to moderator
  By: Maverick128 (Odo's file, contact) @ 04:11:33 on Jul 23, 2008

  Quote:
  Star Trek community says Jolene Blalock should mind her own business.
  
  Amen to that. Why the hell would any of us even care what she says.

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: Star Trek community says... | Report this post to moderator
    By: sb2004 (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:02:12 on Jul 23, 2008

    Quote:
    Quote:Star Trek community says Jolene Blalock should mind her own business.
    
    Amen to that. Why the hell would any of us even care what she says.
    
    Well for one thing she happens to be one of the ONLY Star Trek actors who actually happens to be a bona fide, card carrying fan of TOS. So you're saying that Star Trek fans aren't allowed to state their opinion re: Shatner and should shut the hell up. I suggest you post this request to the boards and see what response YOU get.
    
    Al

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

    • RE: Star Trek community says... | Report this post to moderator
      By: Rorschach (Odo's file, contact) @ 23:02:00 on Jul 23, 2008

      And add to the rampant Shatnerbating?
      
      --------
      
      
      "This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny that feeds them to dogs. It's us. Only us."

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

      • RE: Star Trek community says... | Report this post to moderator
        By: lnf3 (Odo's file, contact) @ 00:08:25 on Jan 12, 2009 | (1)

        Quote:
        And add to the rampant Shatnerbating?
        
        As opposed to the Abramsbating that YOU people have been doing?

        
        

        Reply

        Quote

ZOMG!!! | Report this post to moderator
By: Cymro (Odo's file, contact) @ 01:47:38 on Jul 23, 2008

What the hell is up with her lips in that photo?

--------

Dig deep piles of rubble and ruins
Towering overhead both far and wide
There's unknown tools for World War III
Einstein said 'We'll use rocks on the other side'

No survivors!

Reply

Quote

• RE: ZOMG!!! | Report this post to moderator
  By: GustavoLeao (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 04:28:31 on Jul 23, 2008

  Sorry, that was the most recent photo of her I encountered. But in the Femmme Fatales link, you will find some hot photos of her.
  
  Gustavo
  
  --------
  
  TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
  
  gl2000@uol.com.br

  
  

  Reply

  Quote

  • RE: | Report this post to moderator
    By: rassmguy (Odo's file, contact) @ 05:23:51 on Jul 23, 2008

    I've got to be honest, folks...sometimes, I wonder what has happened to the fan base on this board that has made so many of you so jaded and reactionary. Gustavo posts a blurb from an article in which a person exercises her right to express her opinion, and it just so happens that she's one of the only--if not THE only--Trek cast member who's been quoted as having a stance on the Shatner issue, which makes it both interesting and relevant. And yet, people jump on her, claiming she should mind her own business and that no one cares what she thinks. What the heck? I'm not saying everything everyone posts should be positive, but come on--fandom used to be a very different animal. It used to be about being a FAN, about enjoying the shows and the actors in them. Now it's largely become a reason for fans to attack, snip it, insult, degrade and yell at other people--and a license to censor or silence them as well. It's very disheartening--and it's very un-Trek-like.
    
    
    --------
    
    Rich Handley
    Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
    Available now from Hasslein Books
    www.hassleinbooks.com
    

    
    

    Reply

    Quote

    • RE: | Report this post to moderator
      By: Gothampunk (Odo's file, contact) @ 07:05:58 on Jul 23, 2008

      Well, you know, it's only a few people. Whenever an opinion is expressed on certain topics (the Shatner-in-STXI being the most boringly obvious), there's a little clutch of people who seem to like to pick at each others' scabs in front of us.
      
      Several months ago I made the analogy to that uncle that always gets annoyingly drunk at family functions. After a while you know what's gonna happen; usually best to ignore it (unless a lamp is gonna get busted, then Gustavo knows shat to do).

      
      

      Reply

      Quote

      • RE: | Report this post to moderator
        By: Trapper Jeff (Odo's file, contact) @ 07:51:27 on Jul 23, 2008

        Quote:
        then Gustavo knows shat to do).
        
        Was that a Freudian slip?
        
        --------
        
        "Be seeing you."
        From the real "The Prisoner" 1968

        
        

        Reply

        Quote

        • RE: | Report this post to moderator
          By: Gothampunk (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:03:37 on Jul 23, 2008

          ha! maybe it was.
          
          BTW, I can't believe Gustavo wasn't cast in the movie. With his enormous fan base, it just doesn't make any sense.

          
          

          Reply

          Quote

          • RE: | Report this post to moderator
            By: GustavoLeao (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 14:34:19 on Jul 23, 2008

            Abrams offered me a cameo. I dont do cameos, damn it !
            
            Gustavo
            
            --------
            
            TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
            
            gl2000@uol.com.br

            
            

            Reply

            Quote

        • RE: | Report this post to moderator
          By: GustavoLeao (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 08:34:47 on Jul 23, 2008

          hahaha, very funny....
          
          Gustavo
          
          --------
          
          TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
          
          gl2000@uol.com.br

          
          

          Reply

          Quote

          • RE: | Report this post to moderator
            By: Trapper Jeff (Odo's file, contact) @ 10:55:11 on Jul 23, 2008

            I'd rather smile at a typo than pay attention to all the bashing and bickering going on here.
            
            
            --------
            
            "Be seeing you."
            From the real "The Prisoner" 1968

            
            

            Reply

            Quote

            • RE: | Report this post to moderator
              By: GustavoLeao (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 11:44:04 on Jul 23, 2008

              Yeah, same here.
              
              Gustavo
              
              --------
              
              TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
              
              gl2000@uol.com.br

              
              

              Reply

              Quote

      • RE: | Report this post to moderator
        By: captainkoloth (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 07:51:00 on Jul 23, 2008

        Quote:
        ...then Gustavo knows shat to do.
        
        A little Freudian slip there? ; P
        
        --------
        
        There once was a man named Scorned,
        whose posts were more offensive than porn.
        He posted one too many,
        got kicked out on his fanny,
        and all the while he had been warned.
        

        
        

        Reply

        Quote

        • RE: | Report this post to moderator
          By: Trapper Jeff (Odo's file, contact) @ 07:53:33 on Jul 23, 2008 | (1)

          LOL you just beat me to it...I thought I had double posted.
          
          --------
          
          "Be seeing you."
          From the real "The Prisoner" 1968

          
          

          Reply

          Quote

      • RE: | Report this post to moderator
        By: rassmguy (Odo's file, contact) @ 07:25:20 on Jul 23, 2008

        "Well, you know, it's only a few people."
        
        Oh, I realize the "Shatner must be in it or it will suck" crowd is a very minor group and will ultimately just be rendered a foonote in Star Trek history, just as the "Daniel Craig sucks" campaign has already become in James Bond history. However, that doesn't mean they don't have the right to express that belief.
        
        I've teased StillKirk about being a one-note army-of-one who only offers anti-Abrams posts--but that's still his right. Like many people, I don't get that particular crusade--but I'd defend his right to free speech, nonetheless, just as I'd defend Blalock's.
        
        I just don't understand why some people on this board are so quick to insult each other, and to imply that those who disagree with them have no right to their own opinions.
        
        --------
        
        Rich Handley
        Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
        Available now from Hasslein Books
        www.hassleinbooks.com
        

        
        

        Reply

        Quote

        • RE: | Report this post to moderator
          By: GustavoLeao (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 07:50:17 on Jul 23, 2008

          I totally agree. I am not a big fan of Jolene Blalock (hell, I am not a big fan of Star Trek Enterprise), but I will be the first to defend her right to free speech. And I have to admit that her opinion is kinda cute. Clueless, but cute.
          
          Gustavo
          
          --------
          
          TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
          
          gl2000@uol.com.br

          
          

          Reply

          Quote