Why I Don't Want to See Shatner Again

First let me say:
Captain Kirk is one of my favorite characters in all of Trek. William Shatner I'm not so hot on, but here I'll try to explain why I don't want to see him as Kirk anymore...

Take a look at some clips from TOS, or even a still shot. You'll see someone with the 'eye of the tiger' so-to-speak. A stern brow, rigid. This guy looks tough. He talks quickly and assertively (somewhat overblown dramatic pauses not withstanding).

Now look at any of the later films or pics of Kirk from that period. You'll see eyes with a somewhat sarcastic nonchalance to them. They're relaxed, even comical. I'm not talking about wrinkles or age - that would be fine. I'm talking about they way he's holding them, his general attitude. Furthermore, listen to him talk. It's laid back and also easy-going, with a bit of ho-hum and whimsy to it. That's not Kirk - it's Shatner in a uniform.

The man forgot how to play James Kirk a long time ago, or stopped trying.

When did this happen? Well, he's definitely still got it in STII. The bottom eyelids are up, and he's got a snap to his delivery. Note how he turns his head and tells it to Dr. McCoy regarding "the dangers of reopening old wounds" in the turbolift.

He also seems to still have it in STIII. In fact, his acting when David is killed is even better than in STII with Spock (althought the Spock death was better overall as a scene). That, while still keeping to the essence of Kirk - a difficult feat.

Then in STIV is where we first see the slip. While IV was a great ride and a fun film, consider the alleged Kirk talking to Spock on the train (just after the punk rocker incident). Consider him in the "it's better for them/you" lines in Gillian's truck. That is not Kirk delivery. Here we're getting Shatner. Could this have to do with the change in directors to Nimoy? Perhaps. Can you imagine Nimoy trying to tell Shatner he's not playing Kirk right? Maybe Shatner thought the change was a good opportunity to do it how he liked - who knows.

By the time V comes along we've got Shatner directing and the real Kirk has been fully buried. Sadly, we haven't seen Kirk since he answered Spock's "your name is Jim" at the end of STIII.

Now, if there were some way to get around the complete cheesiness of yet again bringing back another character from the dead, we'd need to get an acting coach to completely re-train Shatner on how to play Kirk, as if he were jumping into the role of a historic figure, from scratch. But, alas, cheesy it would be so I'd rather look more to the future at this point.

 

Nimoy also directed 3

 

Ah, thanks. So much for some of those theories as to why Shatner played Kirk in III and himself in IV.

 

Well, to be fair, Nimoy is a little worn around the edges, too. The most recent versions of Spock he gave us were very different from the Spock of TOS.

I definitely see what Tiberius1701 is saying and I respect his opinion (especially since he's chosen a well reasoned response instead of the usual anti-Shatner cheapshots), but I think much of the same can be said for Nimoy.

I'm okay with Shatner not being in it. But I will definitely experience some fanboy giddiness if they find a way to sneak him in.

And it just seems like such a waste (with Kelley and Doohan already gone) to not take advantage of putting Kirk and Spock together one last time. (Especially with Shatner arguably at the top of his acting game.)

Plus, Spock alone at the end of the film is a downer. Kirk and Spock together just feels right.

Admittedly, these are not great reasons to put Shatner in the film, but I like them. So .

 

I agree to a certain extend. When I watch Star Trek IV and are forced to sit through Trek V, I have a hard time separating Shatner from Kirk. Especially in The Final Frontier it's Shatner in a uniform, just as you said. However in TUC I feel like I'm watching Kirk again. His delivery is more like the Kirk we've known from TOS and there is a sense of urgency and gravitas in his performance.

 

Sam, that's a good point about putting them together again, partly because Kelley and Doohan are gone and these guys won't live forever.

I can actually buy that argument more than many others (the 'Shatner IS Star Trek' argument, for example).

And while it is precisely because Shatner is at the top of his game that he doesn't NEED Star Trek...I think we can safely say he wouldn't hurt the picture with poor acting brought on by the effects of age.

As an actor, Shatner is currently the best he has ever been. Denny Crane really, truly rocks in all kinds of directions...and if it wasn't for Shatner and Spader, that show would have been long gone.

 

I love the Shat, but I think he needs a good script to be good and can't really elevate a bad script.

Now TFF was an, um, not so good script (with some exceptions) and I guess doubling as director didn't help. TVH was much more comedic than any Trek before, so the lighter mood overall led to a less serious Kirk than we were used to. I actually think Shatner has awesome comedic timing (see Boston Legal) and I wouldn't call his acting in TVH bad. Just different from a more serious Kirk from the previous movies, hence why it may seem a tad jarring.

Also agreed that he was awesome in TUC. And as for Gen, I repeat my point about bad scripts.

 

If you want a Kirk 14 years older than the one that died in GEN back together with Spock one last time, one Trek device that could make it happen is Q, not that I'm saying that's a good idea.

 

I'm still sticking by my Boston Legal style ending. That's the way I would do it.

Now, where is that link...

EDIT: Here it is:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=36194

 

HOnestly I don't think it would work too well, but mostly because I don't want the cheesiness of having both Shatner and Nimoy in the last scene together. I just think something like that would come off rather forced and be shoehorned in for nostalgia rather than telling a good story and having an ending that leaves me wanting more.

Just being honest, but seeing both of them together in the movie would pull me out of the plot. No matter what they were doing, Shat playing Kirk is going to have me thinking "that's Shat" instead of me thinking of him as Kirk, or Kirk's dad or whatever. NImoy might work in small doses -- it depends on whether he can still lose himself in the role. but not both together, and I'd rather have Nimoy.

 

Nothing wrong with that.

 

I agree with a lot of the first post, but feel he did a lot of good after Trek 3--at times--not consistantly. It did depend on the director (and seriousness of the scripts.)
But I do agree with the theory that in 2008 he probably has no clue how to find or play the character.
His ideas concerning trek 5 in his DVD commentary showed he no affinity for the material or history--he simply felt improved FX would make it a better picture.
So unless the scene in Trek 11was as written an absolute masterpiece--which isn't likely in a movie this sprawing and epic it wouldn't turn out good, and they can't survive an embarrassing performance by him or even worse having to cut out his role.

 

Can you give an example? I am honestly asking, as I never heard the commentary (I really need to toss the vids and get the DVDs).
In any case, I felt for all its shortcomings, TFF had some of the best character moments when it came to the "big three". Maybe not the most subtle, but none of them seemed to scream they were written by someone who didn't have an understanding of the characters.

All of that to say I do agree with the fact that at this point, Shatner may overshadow the character of Kirk to a degree and may take viewers out of the new movie. But then I think Nimoy will as well (and ironically it has been him who has stated that Spock was, in a way, part of him). At the same time, Kirk as a character would deserve a more fitting closure than he got, IMHO.

 

That's fine, but we all know Shatner doesn't do cameos.

 

That comment was either a negotiation tactic, or a ruse. We won't know which until next summer.

 

If Shatner wants to read the phone book in Star Trek XII, he's earned the right.

 

I'm sure your personality would change quite a bit over the course of a hundred years too.

I always looked at TOS Kirk vs. movie Kirk like this:

Captain Kirk still had something to prove. He was the youngest Captain in Starfleet, aggressive and bold, but I don't believe he was as confident in his abilities as his outward appearance let on.

Admiral Kirk had two decades of command experience under his belt. He had matured, grown more confident and relaxed, nothing more.

It's like Picard in season one versus Picard in season seven. Who'd have wanted to watch that stuffy, severe jerk for a decade?

Good characters evolve, and good actors and writers find ways to make that happen, whether it's deliberate or just the natural evolution of an actor becoming comfortable in his or her role. And we as the audience gain new perspectives on the characters over time through their adventures, which probably makes them seem even more familiar and comfortable.

 

Under the circumstances, I'm surer of William Shatner handling Kirk than I am of Chris Pine. I know Shatner can play Kirk (and I was fine even with his later performances), while Pine is still an unknown variable. There are many good reasons for him not to appear in the film but I don't think this is one of them.

 

Agreed!

 

Kirk is easily my favourite captain of the ST shows. But I have some misgivings about Shatner being able to deliver a passable Kirk performance, not so much due to his age (Nimoy looked his age in his TNG appearances, and I had no complaint) as his weight. I don't have a problem with overweight characters or anything - I just can't picture Kirk as being quite a bit overweight. A man of such conviction, no matter how relaxed he'd get in his golden years... I don't see him letting himself go to that degree.

I don't think Shatner's odd version of Kirk in the later Treks was so much to do with him losing touch with the character. I think it has more to do with the scripts and how the studios wanted more "Indiana Jones" and "Star Wars" injected into the films. I see it being similar to the way Bond changed going from Connery's version to Moore's. More jokes, more slapstick. But then, maybe it wasn't all studio - I remember reading about Shatner's first introduction to TOS and how he felt the characters should be less serious. I think old Bill likes humor, but I really could have enjoyed the Trek films that followed ST3 better without all the jokes. I don't think the Kirk we once knew would let some albino maniac put a bullet in him as easily as his older, jollier version did in Generations.

I also have an issue with bringing him back from the dead. They cloned Ellen Ripley, and I was apprehensive, but got over it since they added some of the alien qualities into her, basically recreating her character. Spock they brought back, but he's an alien, and the concept of an eternal soul/mind is easier to swallow. Kirk, on the other hand, is human. He was already killed off by a lackluster villain in a poorly written scene. I don't want to see more damage done to his legacy by having him brought back in some extremely hokey fashion.

I mean, I love the Original Series. I love Enterprise because it's so similar to TOS. I would love to see Shatner and Nimoy in one more Trek movie, but not at the expense of a coherent script.

Honestly, though, my guess is that he does have a small part or cameo or w/e in the new film. And that this whole big drama about not being included is just a smokescreen.