Why is it so awfully incredibly important??
- Thread starter number6
- Start date
I'm a huge fan of Shatner's Kirk and admit I would love to see him portray the good Captain once again, but am not overly bothered by his absence from the new movie. If anything I was a little nervous about the idea of Nimoy being included at first, thinking that the new cast should sink or swim on thier own, but from what I've heard--which is admittedly very little--it sounds as if Abrams and Co have a good story reason for having old-Spock in the movie. If such a reason doesn't exist in their story for Kirk then I'd hate to see them put him in "just because."
Understandable, but let's face it... regardless of how one feels about Shatner or Kirk or even the original series itself, Shatner was front and center on-screen more often than anyone else. It's to be expected that he'd draw the biggest reaction, fairly or not. The character of Spock is perhaps the face of the show, iconic in public perception. However, Shatner as the actor seems to stand out more than most of the others. That's not to say he's a better actor, just that he's more noticeable.
You may not have intended it that way, but comments like the one below don't exactly start you out on the best foot.
There are people who feel strongly about Shatner being in the film, and ridiculously so. I seriously doubt they are going to be swayed at all, so there's not much point in spending time on it. Yet there are bound to be others who also feel strongly but don't take their stance to such stereotypical extremes. It shouldn't be surprising that they might feel slighted by the way you characterize them in your initial post.
Uh...nope.
^ Man, I'd like to see that source.
Anyway, I don't need Shatner in the movie but I don't care if people want him in it, too, for whatever reason. We don't always need reasons to want something. Come to think about it, it's actually seldom the case.
Anyway, I don't need Shatner in the movie but I don't care if people want him in it, too, for whatever reason. We don't always need reasons to want something. Come to think about it, it's actually seldom the case.
Well, be careful there. Kirk will not be bigger than Shatner until May 2009. How well Kirk does without him is unknown.
I know nothing about Pine, so he could be great or a block of wood for all I know. I'm being pretty quiet about the recasts because (aside from Urban) I don't think I remember seeing any of these actors perform before (including Quinto). So I'm waiting 'till 09 or the first preview to judge that part of the movie. It's unlikely I'll see them anywhere else since my TV watching is very limited.
Personally, I consider it somewhat professionally "brave" for Pine and Quinto to take on these roles. Heck, we've seen it demonstrated time and again through thread after thread that Shatner and Nimoy are so closely linked to the characters by a fairly large number of fans, that to consider anyone else n the roles is nearly sacrilege. To consider following them takes a measure of guts on any actor's part. It's not a guarantee that this film will be a launching pad for either Pine or Quinto, so the "cost" could be a bit of a gamble. But imho it's a good one to take.
Pine may indeed suck, but that's beside the point. My point was, Kirk is no longer the soul province of one specific actor (yes, I realize we won't see it until next May, but since Pine is playing the role as we speak, I think present-tense is valid).
Look, I dig the Shat. Funny guy, occasionally moving actor, hell of an airplane ticket salesman. I'm sorry this film didn't work out to include him, but in the scheme of life it's such a minor thing, I can't wrap my head around people who are *obsessing* about it.
I have pondered this question at great length and have yet to come up with any logical answer. If Shatner is in it, fine. If Shatner isn't in it, fine. (For me.) Maybe all us older, um, can't think of a nice word here, either they don't belong to this BBS or have moved on to other things (like my mother). As I have posted elsewhere, by the second season, the network was receiving mail wanting *more* Spock-centered stories and the joke on the lot was "Star Trek" might become "The Kirk and Spock Show." Of course, it didn't. I'll just be grateful to live to see the damn thing, otherwise I'll just have to float out to the west coast and haunt the daylights out of that Paramount exec that keeps moving the opening date. 
But none of THOSE firsts were the sole person to play the role for over 40 years.
And Connery was NOT the first Bond. That honor goes to Barry Nelson back in 1954.
That being said, honestly I would have preferred neither Shatner nor Nimoy (nor any of the other principles) be in the new movie. I think it might invite unfair comparisons. Not that there'll be any shortage of those.
Ok, I was wrong on Bond, but that appears to have been a minor TV appearance. Connery was first, in every important respect (much like Washington was the first U.S. President of note, despite John Hanson, and a string of others, preceding him).
Anyway, this is getting away from my original point, that the argument that because Shatner created the role of Kirk, it is therefore impossible for anyone else to play it, is specious.
Anyway, this is getting away from my original point, that the argument that because Shatner created the role of Kirk, it is therefore impossible for anyone else to play it, is specious.
Specious as it may be, it's because Shatner has been the only actor to play such an iconic figure for so long that there are people who have this reaction. Then again, after this film, the comparison of Pine's version to Shatner's could easily be on the order of Chow-Yun Fat to Yul Brynner for the King of Siam.
Not being in the movie is the price Shatner has to pay for killing off Kirk in GEN. Remember, Kirk wouldn't have died unless the Shat went along. And he did, for $$$$$.
So the Shat pays the price now for that awful decision.
So the Shat pays the price now for that awful decision.
I'll have you know that I didn't enjoy Casino Royale because Sean Connery wasn't there. I hated Batman Begins for not including Adam West. And I was really pissed Superman Returns didn't have Christopher Reeve in it. If Shatner's not in Trek XI, I'll lose it and lose faith in Hollywood's ability to make good movies.
