Kirk definitely in Star Trek XI

Oh. And there can be only one.

Y'know, guys, let's not jump to conclusions here. All Abrams says is

Having had an inside track on some of the tinfoil-in-the-radar tricks Harve Bennett pulled during the making of TWOK, TSFS and TVH, I'm skeptical of any rumor coming out of Paramount.

Ergo, what if

I wouldn't dismiss it as a possibility.

Ok, have read the many comments in this thread and my views are:-

1) Batman and Superman were comic book characters designed for that media. When we see a movie representation of them we don't compare it to teh first actor to play the role. We compare it to our mental image of the comic book character.

2) James Bond was a character created for the written word. His look was described by Ian Fleming and the movies are an adaption of that description. Despite this, Connery remains consistant as the fan's favourite Bond.

3) TNG is not comparable as it featured new characters.

4) Classic BSG characters are nowhere near as iconic as the TOS characters, or, for that matter, Picard and co.

The thing that is different about Kirk and Spock is that at the time those characters were created they were immediately played by Shatner and Nimoy. The chemistry between the big three in TOS is an significant factor in the success of the show. Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley had a huge hand in inhabiting those characters, breathing their own personalities into them and making them their own. No one actor has played Superman or James Bond and has been known as that character for more than 40 years. That's the difference. Shatner IS Kirk and Nimoy IS Spock. Any new repsentations of those characters will, in essense, be like watching new characters.

Star Trek can continue and it can go back to the wonder and intrigue of TOS without having to bring back Kirk. Respect the original cast, their creations and create a new cast of characters that respects their legacy, rather than ignoring it like the Berman shows did.

I'd be happy with that.

I like the idea of going back to the original series era, no holodecks, etc. The other big lesson that should be learned is to make the story about the lead characters, this ensemble stuff hasn't really worked in Trek, the trinity is the way to go. It worked in Star Trek, and it worked in Forbidden Planet, it's a better dynamic, especially for a movie.

And Bill Shatner is Jim Kirk, I have 1000 times the odds of winning the Powerball jackpot compared to finding someone else who can make that part his own.

Don't get me wrong. I'll spend the money. I was burned by Nemesis and I'll risk getting burned again. No doubt.

However, to everyone rolling out the James Bond/Batman lines (I have a life, thank you RJHJ) just read El Chup's post and desist. The Shat essentially created the character of Kirk and no-one else has played him. Maybe the new guy, if there is one, will do a good job and maybe I'll even enjoy the film but it definitely won't be 'Jim' for this filmgoer.

To anyone who says "if it ain't Shatner, it ain't Kirk," I'd say "don't bother seeing the movie." If you're so hostile to the very idea that you're prepared to hate it sight unseen, what's to be gained from watching it?

Shatner is an actor. Kirk is a character. Actors die. Characters live forever. Maybe--just maybe--the new actor will lend a novel dimension to the character and make Star Trek more interesting.

I didn't say I'd hate it - I said I'd definitely see it and might even enjoy it.

The fact there'll be some Kirk-lite on the screen is not enough to doom it.

Yeah, maybe. Course, I don't want or need a novel dimension...

But the thing is, whoever will be playing Kirk will more than likely be trying to emulate Shatner's acting style.

The same way Steve Martin was impersonating Peter Sellers playing Clouseau.

It all boils down to a lack of originality.

As much as I'm saying the Shat is Kirk, any attempt to 'act like the Shat' will doom this movie to death. The guy has to do it his own way - that way half the audience can pretend he's someone else while the other half suck up nuKirk.

Well, I agree that the VERY WORST choice an actor/director could make would be to have someone do a Shatner impression while playing Kirk. Every single time...he...talkedlikeShatner, it would be...intolerable.

Same thing with the other characters. The last thing I want is a Nimoy impression or a Kelly impression. Take the character attributes and come up with a new portrayal. Give McCoy a real Georgia accent, for instance.

Come on, people...who wouldn't want to see Gary Sinise as McCoy?

*thinks*

That could work...

In light of recent events, what about a scene in which a young, angry Kirk threatens to go on a shooting rampage at the academy, only to be talked out of it by Spock, forming the basis for their lifelong friendship?

Edit: Blatant pandering? Shameless opportunism? Sounds like Hollywood, IMO!

Already been done...almost...

Is that from the same folks who did the godawful "Spock: Messiah!"?

Not sure, but I'll say this much - "Price of the Phoenix" is responsible for all that Kirk/Spock slashfic.

Of the ass!!

Have you ever seen DS9? An ensemble cast can work. There's no need to resort to three main characters.

DS9 was a lucky fluke, and not likely to be repeated, given the redheaded stepchild treatment it got by the mainstream. That's all the beancounters will ever see.

Well, JJ Abrams created Lost, so I think he has some experience with ensemble casts. Having an ensemble cast, or at least focusing on most of the main characters could work just as well as DS9.

Nah, K/S was around long before that. Marshack & Culbreath just capitalized on it.

Wait - did I say that?

TNG wasn't a re-imagining, it was "Let's continue on with my drug-induced distortions of a good story and ignore the contributions of every other Star Trek writer, because I'm Gene Fucking Roddenberry!"

DS9 was a reboot of TNG, but both are just extensions of the two defining characteristics of TOS in the extremes. Picard was the fantasy captain, Sisko was the human captain.

Thank God for [-]DVD[/-] piracy then.

Absofuckinlootly.

And GR had been dead for two years. Berman was at the top of his game then, and he had Piller et al. on board. Then he took little Brannon under his, erm, wing and kicked Ron Moore to the curb. Two biggest mistakes he ever made, career-wise anyway.

Alright, here's a Trek XI plot uber-liberal Hollywood will love, IMO!

Still not a good model for a movie, the storytelling demands are different.

I agree that roughly 2 hours or less isn't a lot of time to work with, but it's possible. DS9 had several two-parters that could work as movies. Then again, the characters already had several seasons to develop. The only TOS characters that really developed were Spock, Kirk, and McCoy (assuming they don't reboot it altogether).

I dunno, I'm skeptical of the whole idea. Hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised when the movie turns out to be spectacular.

If they can pull it off, why not? If they "Enterprise" it, ya know, bad writing, acting ect, ect.