I think even using it a little would open the floodgates, just as in Star Wars. Fortunately Star Trek has had a well established history of using other actors to play their characters.
Spoilers Canon, Continuity, and Pike's Accident
- Thread starter CorporalCaptain
- Start date
Because that’s what the character looks like.
In a German syfy novel series I read (Sternenfaust btw), popular news anchors would be “played” by four different journalists. The viewership was none the wiser thanks to holo technology. If anything affected one journalist, somebody else could portray the anchor character and nobody would know.
The character looks like whoever is currently playing them in the production you're watching.
Anyways trek's attempts at deepfakes/de-aging has been terrible.
No. That's what the actor looks like. Characters in drama exist in the text, to be evoked and portrayed by actors - Hamlet, Juliet, Sherlock Holmes, James Kirk.
So, you would be open to rebooting Indy with a new actor? An interesting thought.
I'm not really into the deepfakes myself. It worked okay with Hamill, but definitely didn't with Carrie. It also feels a bit like raping the dead when the actor has passed. I'd rather see a new interpretation.
Those old-timey characters originate in theatre and drama. Spider-Man can be recast because it’s just a comic book figure.
Kirk is a visual character from television. His appearance is part of the character.
I hate the idea of a character being forever ensconced in one performance. I just can't fathom that with any other medium yet Kirk and Company are so sacred as to never change? 
No.
And you think this is a good thing to aspire to?
No.
In a way it's already been done, by having actors other than Harrison Ford playing a younger version of the character - and no de-aging CGI required!
https://www.lucasfilm.com/productions/the-adventures-of-young-indiana-jones/
https://indianajones.fandom.com/wiki/River_Phoenix
Now that's just obstinate. Even from the point of view that "any person can portray the same, individual TV character", you could show somebody a screenshot from a TOS episode and somebody else would be able to point at the character and say, that's Kirk. There's a look associated with that person.
That doesn't mean he's locked in to that role forever or that no one else can play him. That's black and white to me in an extreme way. My personal favorite Phanton of the Opera is Michael Crawford? Should no one else play him?
So what?*
You're offering this up as if it's self-evidently an important distinction. In fact, it's meaningless.
Entirely wrong. He's been played substantially by three different actors.** He will be played by more in the future. No deepf*king involved.
If you don't like seeing the character played by different actors, then say that. Pretending that he can't be or that there's something wrong with it doesn't fly.
*They may be "old-timey" but the others I listed are about guaranteed to outlast Kirk in the public imagination. They've already persisted longer, some for centuries.
**Not counting Janice Lester and Corvette Kid Kirk, here.
I could show somebody a screenshot from Superman - The Movie and somebody else could point to Reeve and say "That's Superman."
And then, I could show somebody a screenshot from Man of Steel and somebody else could point to Cavil and say "That's Superman."
And so on, and so forth...
And then, I could show somebody a screenshot from Man of Steel and somebody else could point to Cavil and say "That's Superman."
And so on, and so forth...
Because Superman is based in comics. Anyone could play Superman. This also applies to characters originating in theatre and prose. There's no canon look to them other than what's described. Whereas with the television character we have a specific appearance.
Recast.
I'm really beginning to hate that word. Trek fans will use it as a crutch to argue over just about anything.
Similar threads
