Why is it so awfully incredibly important??

[number6]

Why is it so important to such a select few that Shatner "has to" appear as Captain Kirk in this film??

Sure he originated the role and defined the character, but like Bond, Holmes, Superman, Batman, Scrooge, and a whole host of other characters that have been protrayed by multiple actors, Kirk, as a character, can be portrayed convincingly by any good actor.

IMO, the torch has been passed several times already:

The torch is passed in TNG by McCoy in Encounter at Farpoint, by Scotty in Relics, and by Spock in Unification. It is passed by Kirk in TUC and GEN. How many more "torch passing" scenarios do we need??

It isn't Abrams responsability to anyone to somehow "fix" the events that lead to Kirk's death in GEN and in respecting almighty canon, slapping Shatner into the story makes no sense to the writers and I can accept that. All I care about is seeing a good Trek film in '09. So far no one has provided a compelling reason why Shatner "has to" be in this one.

If you can provide reason more compelling than "Doooood, Shatner is Kirk and the film will be teh Suck wi9thout him!!11!!" feel free to opine.

After several months I am still waiting for some intelligent discourse on the matter.

 

[CaptJimboJones]

It's not particularly important, at least for me. In fact, outside of a very vocal minority, I don't think most Trek fans care.

 

[Basil]

Why does anyone need to justify it to YOU? If they want to see Shatner, they want to see Shatner. I do. If you don't, that's fine. If he's in it and it bothers you, stay home. Or go see it. Up to you. But nobody needs your permission or approval, any more than they need mine.

 

[rotorbotor]

Re: Why is it so awfully incredibly important?? *DELETED*

Post deleted by rotorbotor

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, you know, I thought about it...

I thought maybe this one should be discounted a groundhog or at least half a groundhog just because not as many topics are started criticizing the call for Shatner's inclusion as are campaigning for it.

But that could be seen as showing an unseemly bias. A Shatner-In-Trek-Movie topic is a Shatner-In-Trek-Movie topic.

Gotta go for the whole five.

 

[T'Bonz]

OK, Den. What's the deal with the rodent type high fives? (I don't see all the posts so may have missed an explanation, but I'm curious.)

 

[Charlie Kelly]

I don't think the movie will suck without Shatner. But I want Shatner to appear anyway because his Kirk is my childhood hero. Just because he died in Star Trek VII doesn't mean I never want to see him again. I'll always want Shatner to play Kirk again, over and over. That's just me. But I'll say it again, having him appear or not appear isn't going to change whether the movie's good or not.

Charlie

 

[StarMan]

TBonz said:
OK, Den. What's the deal with the rodent type high fives? (I don't see all the posts so may have missed an explanation, but I'm curious.)

You familiar with the movie Groundhog Day, TBonz?

 

[Neroon]

^ What you said, Charlie. Capt. Kirk was one of my greatest heroes, growing up. Young though I was, I could still see his flaws. Yet... he always seemed to rescue the situation, no matter how dire. At the very least he wasn't above realizing humanity's limitations. And because nobody else ever played the character (okay, you can argue Sandra Smith), William Shatner became synonymous with him.

With all of that.... much as I might enjoy seeing Shatner in the role one more time, the film will rise and fall on its own merits, not the presence of certain actors.

 

[johnconner]

If Old Spock wasn't in it, there would be absolutely zero controversy on this front.

 

[Tamek]

TBonz said:
OK, Den. What's the deal with the rodent type high fives? (I don't see all the posts so may have missed an explanation, but I'm curious.)

I thought it was hitler groundhog.

 

[StarMan]

johnconner said:
If Old Spock wasn't in it, there would be absolutely zero controversy on this front.

Trust me, it'd come up (albeit not as much).

 

[Temis the Vorta]

You're underestimating what talented actors and writers can do. It's entirely within their power to create a new performance of Kirk without Shatner's participation that will pass muster with anyone open minded to allow themselves to appreciate it.

It goes without saying that some people will never permit themselves to judge Kirk in Trek XI fairly. Those people are condemning themselves to be unhappy, since even if Shatner is somehow in this movie, the character of Kirk will definitely outlive Shatner and probably all of us, too. I certainly hope so, anyway.

 

[Arlo]

Adam West DEFINED Batman! No one else COULD EVER play him!
Laurence Olivier is the DEFINITION of Hamlet! No other actor could EVER portray him!
Sean Connery IS James Bond! Any Bond film without him would be an utter failure!

 

[number6]

Basil said:
Why does anyone need to justify it to YOU? If they want to see Shatner, they want to see Shatner. I do. If you don't, that's fine. If he's in it and it bothers you, stay home. Or go see it. Up to you. But nobody needs your permission or approval, any more than they need mine.

I just wanted to hear some other reasoning other than "Tha Shat Roools" it's indeed a shame that you choose hostility over intellect, but then I guess some are only capable of one or the other. Fortunately there are others who can better articulate their opinions, Nazi Groundhogs not withstanding..

 

[jayrath]

Um . . . perhaps it's important because:

number6 said:
he originated the role and defined the character

 

[Valar]

number6 said:

Basil said:
Why does anyone need to justify it to YOU? If they want to see Shatner, they want to see Shatner. I do. If you don't, that's fine. If he's in it and it bothers you, stay home. Or go see it. Up to you. But nobody needs your permission or approval, any more than they need mine.

I just wanted to hear some other reasoning other than "Tha Shat Roools" it's indeed a shame that you choose hostility over intellect, but then I guess some are only capable of one or the other. Fortunately there are others who can better articulate their opinions, Nazi Groundhogs not withstanding..

woah, woah, back up there chief. Your original post is pretty inflammatory, this other guy is merely responding in kind- for you to hide behind intellect now is disingenous.

 

[archeryguy1701]

jayrath said:
Um . . . perhaps it's important because:

number6 said:
he originated the role and defined the character

So why are there no calls for the rest of the remaining cast? Everyone who was a TOS regular helped make the show, it wasn't just Shatner/ Kirk's doing. And I do believe the OP's question is valid: why is it so important that Shatner (no one else, just Shatner) appear in this?

 

[ancient]

I'm not in the MUST HAVE SHAT=KIRK crowd, but I'm not bothered by them either.

A lot of people are nostalgic for the Shat. A lot of people want his lame death in GEN reversed somehow. And some people think that since Nimoy is in it, Shat should be there too, which I can understand.

Though personally, I think his days of playing Kirk are long over, not everyone agrees. Must they?

 

[jayrath]

Everyone who was a TOS regular helped make the show, it wasn't just Shatner/ Kirk's doing.

Agreed. Very early on I called for the involvement of Bob Justman and D.C. Fontanta. Which I still think is a wonderful idea.