Why is it so awfully incredibly important??

[Kegek]

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.

I know I'm not the first to bring it up, but Sean Connery and Bond applies here. Connery's a big star. While not technically the first actor to take on the role (as the aforementioned case of Barry Nelson), Connery was strongly identified with it. For that matter, he still is. But quite a number of actors have played him since then. Some very well, others, admittedly, not so good. Pine will be faced with essentially the same problem as the post-Connery Bond actors - as will Quinto. I feel Daniel Craig rose to the occasion, and it's possible Pine and Quinto will do the same.

It's equally possible they won't for all I know, but let's wait and see.

 

[Corwwyn]

Ok, I was wrong on Bond, but that appears to have been a minor TV appearance. Connery was first, in every important respect.

...and of course, Lewis Wilson was first to portray Batman (& Bruce Wayne) on the silver screen (way back in 1943).

 

[Swarles Barkley]

Personally, it doesn't bother me at all that Shat's not in it. (I could certainly live without Shatner's numerous passive-aggressive comments to the media about it however.) To be honest I kind of wish they hadn't felt it necessary to shoehorn Nimoy into it either. Have the courage of your convictions, and if you're going to do a movie about these characters when they were young, with new actors, just do a good job of casting, write a great script, and run with it! The failure or success of this film in terms of reinvigorating the franchise will not hinge upon the presence/absence of Nimoy and Shatner. It will depend far more on the new cast and whether or not Abrams gives us a compelling story.

 

[Tralah]

Well, we don't know if Nimoy is actually "shoehorned" in or not. He very well could be pivotal to whatever the plot is.

 

[Swarles Barkley]

Well, we don't know if Nimoy is actually "shoehorned" in or not. He very well could be pivotal to whatever the plot is.

Fair enough. I think I chose that word based on the admittedly speculative stuff I've seen about the plot thus far. If it turns out to be different from what I've read, then "shoehorned" might not be fair. But if the story pretty much follows the general outline I've been seeing around the interwebs, then I'm afraid it might be appropriate.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Well, we don't know if Nimoy is actually "shoehorned" in or not. He very well could be pivotal to whatever the plot is.

Fair enough. I think I chose that word based on the admittedly speculative stuff I've seen about the plot thus far. If it turns out to be different from what I've read, then "shoehorned" might not be fair. But if the story pretty much follows the general outline I've been seeing around the interwebs, then I'm afraid it might be appropriate.

Then you and the writers are on a different page since they've said from the start Nimoy was critical to the movie and there more or less wouldn't be a film had he chosen not to take on the role once more... there was no back up plan for the story ect.

And what summery are you reading? I don't think we've gotten anything of substance that talks about the plot. There have been rumors and some vague admittance to time travel (which DOES NOT mean Nimoy is shoehorned in)

If they were doing shoehorning they'd not care a jot and just have Shatner there to shut him and everyone up. Really if shoehorning was the level they were working on it wouldn't matter much.

Sharr

 

[EnsignRicky]

I'm not exactly with the lynch mob crying for the inclusion of Shatner. But on the other hand, the story is supposed to depict a young Kirk embarking on his epic journy. How hard would it be to include a short scene on the farm, where Jim gets a few words of wisdom from his worldly grandfather.

 

[Tralah]

Except that would be a cameo, and Shatner has said he has no interest in doing a cameo.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Except that would be a cameo, and Shatner has said he has no interest in doing a cameo.

And of course we can take from the fact Nimoy signed on that this role has "substance" and is critical (which again has little to do with screen time) since all we need do is look at his choice to not be in Generations to ascertain his function in Trek XI is one of value to the movie. He basically has said this himself.

And just because its a story about young Kirk it doesn't therefore follow you need "Old Kirk" to tell that story - Kirk the elders absence could in truth lend a weight to the story and might even that fact may play into Spock's motives and emotions for doing whatever it is he'll be doing.

Sharr

 

[EnsignRicky]

Except that would be a cameo, and Shatner has said he has no interest in doing a cameo.

Oh, well in that case, considering he's fourteen years older than when he died, the grandfather cameo would be about the best scenario he could hope for; So I guess it truely is time for him and his army of space cadets to stop the whining after all.

 

[Tralah]

And just because its a story about young Kirk it doesn't therefore follow you need "Old Kirk" to tell that story - Kirk the elders absence could in truth lend a weight to the story and might even that fact may play into Spock's motives and emotions for doing whatever it is he'll be doing.

I absolutely agree. In fact I think Nimoy's portrayal of Spock in this movie as a man who has outlived all his old friends and is nearing the end of his own life, could have a powerful, and much more poignant impact on the audience than if he was just paired up with Shatner again for some last yakety-yack.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

I think one could easily argue that Nimoy's "I need a part with substance" and Shatner's "I don't do cameos" are two sides of the same coin.

 

[Swarles Barkley]

And what summery are you reading? I don't think we've gotten anything of substance that talks about the plot. There have been rumors and some vague admittance to time travel (which DOES NOT mean Nimoy is shoehorned in)
Sharr

As I said, admittedly the only stuff I've seen about the plot is what I've read here on the BBS, which is essentially rumor. The time travel stuff. It just has a "been there done that", "Generations" like quality to it. I always felt like Generations' biggest flaw was that they went through so many plot gyrations to artificially include both the TOS and TNG crews in the same movie. The stuff I read reminded me of that, which what made me think of "shoehorning". Again, that could all be completely untrue and not at all what the actual movie ends up being about. But we really haven't had much else to go on. Not that I've seen anyway.

 

[SiddFinch1]

To me, it is not essential, but a plus.

No reason for Kirk to remain dead in the trek universe. I would love to see a shatner cameo ( i know he said he wont do a cameo) as Kirk in the end either as a result of Spock's efforts in the past or unexplained so its up to the imagination to apply either the Return or some other method.

Not to rehash old discussions but Picard was a moron in Generations in dealing with Soran since he had the nexus and there really was no good reason for Kirk to die.