And Star Trek V failed because...

[Franklin]

I don't quite agree. That's like saying that Alec Baldwin was the only actor who could play Jack Ryan...if Hunt for Red October was the only Tom Clancy movie ever made. But obviously it wasn't, and obviously he wasn't.

Not at all the same. Jack Ryan existed as a character in print before he was transferred to the big screen. And his was a fleeting appearance that made no big impression on the culture at large.

That wasn't my point. The point was that one cannot justifiably say that only one actor can successfully be associated with one particular role. If that was the case, we'd only have had one Doctor and one James Bond.

I'd agree except to say that Shatner did define the role and is still the one most commonly associated with it. Chris Pine is an excellent Kirk, having walked the fine line between being the character and playing William Shatner being the character.

If in the future there are to be more actors playing Kirk in the studio-produced world of Trek, and Kirk becomes like Bond, there will undoubtedly be more variance in how the character is interpreted and portrayed, with some being called better portrayals than others. Of course right now, we have a "small n" problem: there's only Shatner and Pine, and while Pine was successful, Shatner is still the benchmark. Pine was Kirk, but he didn't steal the character from Shatner.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

James T. Kirk as we know him is an awesome character, who wouldn't have existed without William Shatner — who was awesome in the role.

I don't quite agree. That's like saying that Alec Baldwin was the only actor who could play Jack Ryan...if Hunt for Red October was the only Tom Clancy movie ever made. But obviously it wasn't, and obviously he wasn't.

What I said (or at least what I meant) was much more tautological than what you are saying. To rephrase, what I meant was that the Captain Kirk that we know wouldn't have existed without William Shatner. That's pretty much impossible to argue with; it's a tautology. If Jack Lord or Chris Pine had played Kirk from the get-go, it would have been a different character who entered the popular consciousness.

That's not to say that Chris Pine isn't playing Captain Kirk; he is. However, he's playing a Captain Kirk subsequent to the one already in popular consciousness. I hope that Pine is able to really make Kirk his own character in ST3. So far, I feel that Pine really hasn't been able to break free and do that.

 

[Warped9]

^^ And if he ceases playing the role after the next film, given contemporary society's apparent short attention span, Pine will soon be forgotten by many except hardcore fans.

 

[Smellmet]

Presently one can point to previous portrayals of Superman, Batman, Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, James Bond and others and proclaim any of them as being more definitive, subjectively speaking. Note that all those characters existed in print before being translated to the mediums of film and television. But for four decades no one can point to anyone other than William Shatner as a definitive portrayal of James T. Kirk. Even today you would have a practically impossible case to claim anyone else has done it better than Shatner.

To digress slightly, I would argue that Christopher Reeve's portrayal of Superman/Clarke Kent is the definitive one.

But I can still see urbandefault's point. I think of Baldwin initially sometimes, even though I've enjoyed other incarnations, I even enjoyed The Sum of All Fears...

 

[Warped9]

To digress slightly, I would argue that Christopher Reeve's portrayal of Superman/Clarke Kent is the definitive one.

But that remains a subjective appraisal because I can just as easily say that George Reeves defined Superman in a more credible way. And for a generation or two of fans that was indeed the case.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Take Shatner away from ST and you have Jeffrey Hunter--or whoever else, and the series dies quickly.

You sure do like your fallacies.

 

[Smellmet]

To digress slightly, I would argue that Christopher Reeve's portrayal of Superman/Clarke Kent is the definitive one.

But that remains a subjective appraisal because I can just as easily say that George Reeves defined Superman in a more credible way. And for a generation or two of fans that was indeed the case.

And I would also argue that most of those previous generations of people would have converted to Reeve's portrayal upon viewing, when you mention 'Superman' his face pops into my head first.

His performance in the first two movies was absolutely incredible.

 

[Warped9]

To digress slightly, I would argue that Christopher Reeve's portrayal of Superman/Clarke Kent is the definitive one.

But that remains a subjective appraisal because I can just as easily say that George Reeves defined Superman in a more credible way. And for a generation or two of fans that was indeed the case.

And I would also argue that most of those previous generations of people would have converted to Reeve's portrayal upon viewing, when you mention 'Superman' his face pops into my head first.

His performance in the first two movies was absolutely incredible.

And that remains your preference because many people still looked to George Reeves. I know quite a few of them...including myself.

 

[fireproof78]

To digress slightly, I would argue that Christopher Reeve's portrayal of Superman/Clarke Kent is the definitive one.

But that remains a subjective appraisal because I can just as easily say that George Reeves defined Superman in a more credible way. And for a generation or two of fans that was indeed the case.

What, no love for Dean Cane??

Also, the same argument could be made for Chris Pine now with a younger generation now being exposed to Trek.

I'm not saying that Shatner didn't define the role, but that we now have another person playing Kirk.

 

[2takesfrakes]

There is hate in your soul.

I don't think he has hate in his soul.

"... You're very perceptive."

In my soul, I've nothing but LOVE! Saying of which, a piece of trivia that's often overlooked is the fact that Sybok was, quite obviously, modelled and based off of Leo Buscaglia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Buscaglia

(Oh! And by the way, it was Brandon Routh that was the best interpretation of Superman on film ...)

 

[PCz911]

There is hate in your soul.

I don't think he has hate in his soul.

"... You're very perceptive."

In my soul, I've nothing but LOVE! Saying of which, a piece of trivia that's often overlooked is the fact that Sybok was, quite obviously, modelled and based off of Leo Buscaglia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Buscaglia

(Oh! And by the way, it was Brandon Routh that was the best interpretation of Superman on film ...)

Never heard of Leo buscaglia. Hmmm. Are you sure about him being the inspiration? Did shatner say this somewhere?

 

[Dukhat]

Your argument is still empty. Other characters have indeed been portrayed by various actors over the years leading to said characters being somewhat fluid in terms of interpretation in the eyes of the public at large. But for forty years William Shatner has been associated with James T. Kirk and effectively defined exclusively by Shatner's performance.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you had the power to see into the future and definitively say that from now until the end of time, William Shatner will only be the definitive Kirk.

 

[Warped9]

Your argument is still empty. Other characters have indeed been portrayed by various actors over the years leading to said characters being somewhat fluid in terms of interpretation in the eyes of the public at large. But for forty years William Shatner has been associated with James T. Kirk and effectively defined exclusively by Shatner's performance.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you had the power to see into the future and definitively say that from now until the end of time, William Shatner will only be the definitive Kirk.

We can only talk about what we have because we have no idea what is coming down the pike.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Take Shatner away from ST and you have Jeffrey Hunter--or whoever else, and the series dies quickly.

You sure do like your fallacies.

Hardly. Hunter did not sell Star Trek, and was not a performer suited for that role on weekly basis, but Shatner was the magnetic presence needed--the draw. Try proving the opposite based on history--which removes actors who did not land the role, such as the stiff Jack Lord.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Take Shatner away from ST and you have Jeffrey Hunter--or whoever else, and the series dies quickly.

You sure do like your fallacies.

Hardly. Hunter did not sell Star Trek, and was not a performer suited for that role on weekly basis, but Shatner was the magnetic presence needed--the draw. Try proving the opposite based on history--which removes actors who did not land the role, such as the stiff Jack Lord.

So, if we restrict our attention only to the history that happened, we've got nothing in the way of might-have-beens. Hunter didn't land the part for series, so why consider him as a possibility either?

 

[CorporalClegg]

You sure do like your fallacies.

Try proving the opposite

 

[Warped9]

Take Shatner away from ST and you have Jeffrey Hunter--or whoever else, and the series dies quickly.

You sure do like your fallacies.

Hardly. Hunter did not sell Star Trek, and was not a performer suited for that role on weekly basis, but Shatner was the magnetic presence needed--the draw. Try proving the opposite based on history--which removes actors who did not land the role, such as the stiff Jack Lord.

I don't think Hunter is the reason "The Cage" didn't sell TOS as a series. I might say he didn't seem to project much magnetism, but I would hardly say he failed to carry the character. If anything I might say he came off as somewhat reserved. There's no question many thought him attractive and cut an appealing figure in the role, but he didn't seem to put himself really into it.

Shatner, on the other hand, did put his all into it (or seemed to) as if he really believed in the idea. Taste is subjective, but Shatner wasn't the Hollywood type in the same vein as Hunter--he didn't have the 1950s/early '60s Hollywood look that Hunter had. But Shatner compensated with charm and magnetismand energy that sparked off the screen.

Hunter telegraphed a type of character while Shatner conveyed a more accessible three-dimensional character. And throughout Season 1 Shatner is solid with little if any of the caricatured delivery he would later be spoofed for.

 

[2takesfrakes]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Buscaglia

Never heard of Leo buscaglia. Hmmm. Are you sure about him being the inspiration? Did shatner say this somewhere?

William Shatner has not acknowledged a Leo Buscaglia/Sybok connection, that I am aware of. But, then again, I am not a walking STAR TREK encyclopedia ... However, in my (minimalistic) research on STAR TREK V, via The Internet, Leo Buscaglia has been likened to Sybok, Time After Time™ ... and Time Again. Both in appearance, and in persona. So often, in fact, that I simply took it as "given" that Leo was, in fact, William Shatner's inspiration for the embodiment of the Sybok character. Here are but a few examples of said comparisson which I've come across:

http://www.i-mockery.com/weeklies/weekly.php?type=movies&id=26

"If any of you remember who Leo 'the love doctor'
Buscaglia was, a sort of kinder, gentler, huggier
forerunner of Dr. Phil, I'm pretty sure Buscaglia
and Luckinbill were the same guy."
- - -
http://www.tulsaworld.com/archives/star-trek-v/article_d3db736c-6be7-5b1b-9b57-4190ed1b13fe.html

"... a renegade Vulcan named Sybok (Laurence Luckinbill),
[...] takes control of a hellhole planet called Nimbus III.
He does this by walking around and hugging the inhabitants
like some sort of interplanetary Leo Buscaglia, inviting
them to "share their pain" and liberating them from their
unhappiness."
- - -
http://www.jabootu.com/startrekv.htm

"Well into the picture, Sybok, a Leo Buescalia-type character, told another character that "I feel your pain."

 

[Kemaiku]

And that remains your preference because many people still looked to George Reeves. I know quite a few of them...including myself.

After buying the complete George Reeves Superman series late last year, I much prefer it to the movies.

 

[Dukhat]

Your argument is still empty. Other characters have indeed been portrayed by various actors over the years leading to said characters being somewhat fluid in terms of interpretation in the eyes of the public at large. But for forty years William Shatner has been associated with James T. Kirk and effectively defined exclusively by Shatner's performance.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you had the power to see into the future and definitively say that from now until the end of time, William Shatner will only be the definitive Kirk.

We can only talk about what we have because we have no idea what is coming down the pike.

So? When Patrick Troughton was the Doctor, no one at the time could talk about what was coming down the pike. And yet we eventually had other actors portray the character who "defined" the character in their own way. Hence, it is not an "empty argument" to assume that once Shatner dies, the character of Kirk won't be given to some future actor who will "define" the character for that particular generation.