Why is it so awfully incredibly important??

[Sharr Khan]

I'm attempting to understand what exactly it is about Kirk, the character that is so mind blowingly singular that no other actor besides Shatner is up to the task. Kirk, infact none of the characters on Trek are exactly beyond reproduction. At least there isn't anything that I've ever seen that proves to me they're so singular other actors couldn't play those roles.

Some people are reacting at if being Kirk involves doing brain surgery well launching a rocket at the same time.

Sharr

 

[Akiraprise]

Well, there has to be something for the fandom to argue about before the movie comes out.
I mean in addition to the foreskin on the warp nacelles, how dark corridors aren't cannon, how people don't weld in the future, Sulu's stick... .... ......
Just think, five extra months of this. :thumbsup:

 

[PKTrekGirl]

^ Makes you happy all over, just thinking about it.

 

[Neroon]

Sharr Khan said:
I'm attempting to understand what exactly it is about Kirk, the character that is so mind blowingly singular that no other actor besides Shatner is up to the task. Kirk, in fact none of the characters on Trek are exactly beyond reproduction. At least there isn't anything that I've ever seen that proves to me they're so singular other actors couldn't play those roles.

Some people are reacting at if being Kirk involves doing brain surgery well launching a rocket at the same time.

Sharr

Consider a few other famous actor/role relationships:
- Yul Brynner as the King of Siam in "The King and I"
- Robert Preston as Harold Hill in "The Music Man"
- Alan Alda as Hawkeye Pierce (no offense intended to Donald Sutherland)

are but three examples where I'd say most people have a hard time separating one from the other. Not because they've lost their sense of reality but simply because the almost exclusive bond between actor and role. It's almost impossible for me to consider anyone else in those roles.


Then again some folks may be making trouble just for that reason alone.

 

[ITL]

I'm one of those who can't imagine anyone but Shatner as Kirk - but I'm also ready to give Pine the props if I like what he does in the role. I hope that he'll do such a good job that my brain can accept two Kirks, not one.

I'm very optimistic about this movie in many ways.

 

[Akiraprise]

PKTrekGirl said:
^ Makes you happy all over, just thinking about it.

Sure does.

 

[Holytomato]

Wasn't Christopher Reeves dead by the time of Superman Returns?

 

[The Wormhole]

Wasn't Christopher Reeves dead by the time of Superman Returns?

So was Marlon Brando, but he still appeared in the movie.

 

[Saul]

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.

Nobody is saying such a thing at all. They would just like to see him in the movie playing some Jim Kirk role.

Unlike all the others you have mentioned Shatner has been Kirk for far longer and is very deeply set in peoples minds.

It is surely not the case that nobody else can play it since there have been hundreds of parodies and impressions of James T Kirk.

 

[Rico]

I'm a big Kirk and Shatner fan but if the movie doesn't have a significant part for him it's better he isn't in it.

 

[StarMan]

I'll tell you what I think. Once we've seen this movie - along with that dang general movie going public - I think the majority of rabid fans here will end up adapting to the recast.

God, isn't the fact the character is worth a recast after all these years say something positive? It elevates the character beyond the actor and - so far as Trek goes - may ensure a longevity to Trek that may have otherwise been lost if we'd gone with to either a) Riker's exhilarating adventures on The Titan or b) 29th Century Timecops.

 

[igrokbok]

It's not just the words on the page. I LIKE Kirk because of the way Shatner portrayed him. I like his delivery, I like his charm, I like his mannerisms. Had he been played by Jack Lord I wouldn't be fond of the character as I don't care for Jack Lord's screen presence.

In the new voyages web series. I DON'T like Kirk because of the way Cawley portrays him. I don't like his line delivery, I don't like his cadence or his body language.

Yet both are the "character" of James Kirk. So, say what you will about these great timeless "characters", for me, it's the actor that sells it and, ultimately, makes it or breaks it. And I'm sorry, but this particular character is owned by William Shatner. Every book that is written is done so in the "voice" of Shatner. When a Trek novel is read, the mind will plug in the voice and image of Shatner. When anything from bedsheets to novels to toys feature Kirk...it is in the likeness of William Shatner. Say what you will about Bond, Batman etc, it's apples and oranges. Shatner has been the one, the only offical Kirk for 40 years...one outing by Pine isn't going to change that.

So, why is it important? I don't think it's "important" to a lot of people, but I do think there is no denying people would like it. Why? Because they like Shatner and they like Shatner as Kirk. It's that simple, they like him and want to see him in the role again.

 

[Tralah]

Just because you didn't enjoy seeing Cawley play the character, doesn't mean Pine or some other actor can't do a great job with Kirk. Unfortunately, it sounds like your mind is already made up, but I hope you'll give Pine a fair chance. It is possible that he could do a good job with the role and you could find yourself enjoying the movie. Stranger things have happen.

 

[Sharr Khan]

When a Trek novel is read, the mind will plug in the voice and image of Shatner.

Never had this issue... in many ways the "Kirk" I read is wholly not Shatner and stands out simply as James Kirk. Actually reading Star Trek books to a degree doubtless helped me separate the actor from the character.

But then again for me characters start out as words strung together on a page where they can't rely on anyone person to emote for them and must stand on their own.

FYI when I watch Cawley play Kirk its Kirk I'm seeing most of the time - much better in later attempts.

Sharr

 

[Good Will Riker]

The thing about Chris Pine or any other actor to portray James T. Kirk after William Shatner is that Shatner is just too big of a star at this point and it's hard to imagine anyone else in the role after 40+ years of him strongly-identified with this iconic role.

It's as simple as that.

 

[shapeshifter]

 

[Jack Bauer]

The thing about Chris Pine or any other actor to portray James T. Kirk after William Shatner is that Shatner is just too big of a star at this point and it's hard to imagine anyone else in the role after 40+ years of him strongly-identified with this iconic role.

It's as simple as that.

Some of us have more of an imagination then.

 

[igrokbok]

The thing about Chris Pine or any other actor to portray James T. Kirk after William Shatner is that Shatner is just too big of a star at this point and it's hard to imagine anyone else in the role after 40+ years of him strongly-identified with this iconic role.

It's as simple as that.

Some of us have more of an imagination then.

..and some people enjoyed Will Smith as James West in the wildly unsuccessful Wild Wild West re-imagining. Not many...but there were a few.

 

[Plum]

The thing is... following The Shat isn't easy.

His performance is so dynamic it's admired, mocked, and remembered beyond most actors. They don't call him The Shat for nothing. He's like a drug!

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

I have no doubt that there will be several others to play James T. Kirk in the future. Some will give entertaining performances. But no one will ever be able to recapture the magic that Shatner brought to Kirk.