Good point. There are lots of great actors in the world who could perhaps play any role better than someone else.

It's the audience who must change their expectations.

I agree Tyler, I am also looking forward to the movie.

Sadly, I expect my cat could outact late-60's Shatner. /cough

I'm looking forward to the movie, as well. A little of the "dear lord, please don't let them screw it up," but, if they do, I write it off in my head as spinning off an alternate universe, and go on with life.

I am way excited about the movie, I love JJ's work so I hope it lives up to my hype!

Bad analogy. That was a literary character, so you had a literary template for actors to follow. Kirk was a television character largely defined by the actor. More so the actor than the script, in fact, since the scripts came from many writers and only the actor was consistent.

Having said that, I don't really care. If the story is good and Pine acts the role well (which appears to be a different Kirk than the classic Kirk anyhow) then I'm entertained and duly satisfied.

I believe I understand your point Mike. If so, I agree. Connery is the iconic Bond, but Pierce Brosnan's films and performances were just as great (and made more money). Pierce became James Bond for his generation. Star Trek must now be made for the new generation of film goers and not just for nostalgic Trekkers. Make the film well, with a good script, and talented actors: it will succeed. All of the original cast members were iconic. We do not expect Bill Russell to return to lead the Celtics to victory. Neither should we expect the original cast to reprieve those roles. Yes, Kirk (Shatner) had greater ego and more screen time, but he who does not understand that Trek is an ensemble piece should stick to the Disney cartoons.

Right on.  That is exactly the comparison I was going to make.

Good job.  Great minds think a like.

Don

When Sean Connery played James Bond movie tickets were $0.25 and the world population was less than half of what is it today. A movie that flops today makes more money than a hit did back then. That is a rediculous metric. In opinion poles today Sean Connery is still the favorite bond with more than 70% of the vote and none of the other break 12% (last pole I saw). The star of these kind of movies today are the special effects. In the old days it was the actor.

As for Shatner and Kirk. The thing that is hard to pull of is to be so over the top without shame and laughing at yourself. Shatner's Kirk was bigger than life and a drama queen but somehow despite this no-one ever doughted his masculinity and his ability to get the green chick. It is like Eddy Murphy said about Elvis you put anyone else in those Rhine stone jump suits and they will be laughed at be made fun of (like Liberace and Elton John; don; ELton John fans don't bother to say he was the bigger talent, that is not the point as an overall song writer and musician he was talented but he as not the icon of the 20th century). But Elvis puts them on and he is a bad ass. It is hard to be that ridiculous and still take yourself seriously enough to sell it well enough to be an icon and make everyone believe it.

You can make whatever agreement you want against Shatners "bad acting", that you like next generation better etc. But there were two and a half seasons of the original star trek but 3 times as many episodes of next genrations but the original is the one being played on some screen somewhere. Shatner somehow was able to make you believe that with a control board of your mothers left over buttons glued to a piece of cardboard he could defeat all enemies of at the very least escape to fight an other day.

Yes I know my favorite character was Spock. At least that is what I tell myself. As a half vulcan Spock was more vulcan than any vulcan then of since then. We can rationalize it as he had to be more vulcan than the others as a result of his internal battle with the human side. The fact remains Kirk never did a damn thing worth while to solve any problem. Spock, Doc or Scotty saved the day in every episode but not until after they had given up and Kirk’s never saw die spirit got them off their but and back to work while he worked on getting the green chick.

Go ahead and say I am full of it but: despite the fact that Pierce Bronson and Daniel Craig have the better scripts, more action, better special effects and for that matter sleazier bond girls- Sean Connery was the one considered one of the sexiest men into his seventies and kids that have never seen one of his movies on the big screen still vote him the best bond; despite the fact he was a boarder line cross dresser – Elvis is still considered the greatest stage performer (you don’t write a song on the stage) ever; despite the fact he was doing a bad impersonation of a pro-wrestler (Gorgeous George) – Muhammad Ali is still the greatest; despite the bad set and “so called” bad acting John Wayne is still the definitive good guy; and lastly despite the so called bad acting, the lame sets and toy on a string special effects – Shatner’s Trek is still on the air more than all the better acted, better scripted, better produced …. next-generation, deep space whatever……. knock offs. Why because despite whatever criticisms you have, what these guys have in common is they were so over top and shamelessly themselves that we can only admire their self confidence and wish we had the guts to pull it off.

I agree with what you say.

We certainly cannot compare a literary character like Sherlock Holmes (who has been played beautifully by a number of actors, for me most notably by Jeremy Brett) or even James Bond, with the likes of Kirk and Spock. These two characters were written yes, but they also evolved through the interplay between the actors Shatner and Nimoy. The Spock that played agains Geoffrey Hunter in the original pilot 'The Cage' is almost unrecognisable as the Spock that evolved against Shatner's Kirk.

In the second Star Trek pilot 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' we see the fully-formed Captain James Kirk, hit the ground running from Act 1, Scene 1 and this character is Shatner's creation. By the time of the first normal production 'The Corbomite Manuever' we see the dynamic of Kirk and Spock already well into it's pattern that would remain the same for the next (almost) 30 years; through 79 episodes and six movies these two worked together as a unit. Shatner and Nimoy themselves have stated time and again that they played off each other.

Now to the total myth that Shatner is a bad actor. This is just a joke. The man is one of the most engaging and brave actors ever to come to stage, television and film. Bad actors do not have a range that spans every form of media; bad actors do not have careers that span 50 years. Bad actors do not get the opportunity to create iconic characters. Say the names Captain Kirk, TJ Hooker, Denny Crane all these characters are beloved, iconic and totally individual, sorry bad actors don't get to do that. For some reason it's cool to say Shatner is a bad actor, but that doesn't come from people who know what acting is. As you quite rightly say HG, Shatner (in his role as Captain Kirk) had the ability to make us TOTALLY believe we were flying in a Spaceship through the stars. He fired our imaginations, when he looked at that viewscreen, we could SEE the stars reflected in his eyes. That is ACTING talent right there.

I would like to see these people who decry Shatner as a poor actor pull off a feat like he did at the Stratford Shakepseare Company. Be a performer in one play, be learning a role for another production and understudy a third; then be called to perform the understudied play, un-rehearsed at a moments notice. The man is a total professional and an acting genius. People who say he is a bad actor, could not act their way out of a paper bag.

Captain James T Kirk is Shatner's creation and NO-ONE will ever have a hope of re-creating that magic, nor the 'lightning in a bottle' that Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley did on Star Trek - NOBODY.

I am looking forward to the new movie, but I have very low expectations of the new cast (which I think is only fair considering the boots they have to fill), they don't have a hope in hell of reproducing the magic, but they do have a chance to create something of their own, and let's hope they do. I will not be expecting them to be Shatner and Nimoy, but I am expecting the characters to speak through them, and I expect Star Trek to be a big hit.

Oh quite the contrary. I would love to see all of those original actors turned geriatric oldie from the original series get up there and do another movie looking just like they do today. How hilarious that would be. An instant classic!

Bottom line, however, there is no other Kirk than Shatner and there never will be. Nuff said. End of story.

Err, that's Jim Croce. Better go back and reedit it.;)

Yes, James T. Kirk

Picard is the best example of corporate Star Trek. No soul, no adventure and no style. Kirk is the one and only and Shatner made him live.

I was excited about next generation when it came out. I watch half of the first show and was dissapointed. Picard is the overacting drama queen that kirk was, while number one was the brash womanizing tough guy. One does not work without the other. Data was Spock's logical emotionless side and the slightly chunky telapath was his mystical side. How lazy can you be. Take the two best characters and do a cheap split personality of the two. I turned it off. I watched again a couple years later and liked it. But to call a half Kirk the best example of leadership is a streetch.

I really have to agree. Shatner may be THE Ultimate Kirk, but IMO he isn't even the best captain. Patrick Stewart's Picard wins that hands down.

I really have to agree. Shatner may be THE Ultimate Kirk, but IMO he isn't even the best captain. Patrick Stewart's Picard wins that hands down.

I like you!

If not for Shatner as Kirk, Stewart and every spin off never happens.