Shatner Says New Kirk Role Is Uncastable
I’ve said it before here on The Movie Blog and I’ll say it again: A new Star Trek movie just going back to tell the story of a younger Captain James T. Kirk is a STUPID idea of the highest order. Unless the folks at the USS Paramout decide to do a complete re-imagining of the Star Trek franchise (much liken unto what they’ve done with Battlestar Galactica) then just going backwards isn’t going to do ANYTHING to gain new viewers for this franchise that hasn’t gained new fans in almost 15 years. It might keep some of the pre-existing Star Trek fans happy… but it’s been proven the pre-existing fan base IS NOT ENOUGH.
This new franchise needs new blood in the worst way imaginable… maybe even a total transfusion if it’s going to survive (it’s dead franchise as it is).
Anyway, recently William Shatner made a comment that I totally agree with. The good folks at M&C give us this:
he 75-year-old actor, who rose to fame as the ‘Star Trek’ captain in the 1960s, joked in a recent TVGuide.com interview that TV producer J.J. Abrahm`s attempts to recast the role for his ongoing work would prove fruitless. ‘I think it`s essentially uncastable,’ Shatner said of the role.
Now, I’m of the belief that WHO plays a role (the actor) is NOT as important as the character itself. BUT… having said that… there is something unique about Shatner’s relationship with Kirk. You see… he still is Kirk.
This isn’t like Magnum PI where Tom Selleck stopped being Magnum almost 20 years ago. This isn’t like David Hasselhoff and Michael Knight. William Shatner still is Kirk for all intents and purposes, and I just don’t know that re-casting him is going to fly at all. Any new actor wouldn’t have to play the role of Kirk… they’d have to play the role of William Shatner playing Kirk.
Just forget it Paramount. Please don’t go down this road. And if you MUST use the Kirk character.. .then just blow everything up and do a total re-start. Anything else will just be dumb.
1. Senor Chefy- AKA Chark Hammis replies at 6th November 2006, 2:03 pm :
A dark and gritty Star Trek- pooping on the grave of Gene Roddenbury- is where it’s at. I don’t give a rat’s ass about the young Kirk. I want to see space ships getting blowed up and turmoil and the darker side of this universe. See to it, JJ.
2. steven replies at 6th November 2006, 2:18 pm :
i’m not a star trek fan at all, but shatner, as long as he has breath in his body, will always be Kirk, even in real life he’s Kirk.
as far as the “remake” is concerned. Battlestar galatica has cofirmed that if you treat your product with respect and with actors who arent always famous, but have a drive for acting the best they can, you’ll have a show that rewards you and the viewer each week, star trek needs to learn that, and w/ the star wars tv show coming up and more battlestar seasons, I feel like star trek is going to get shoved to the side again
3. fearlessweaver replies at 6th November 2006, 2:27 pm :
I think a reboot is the best option left. Each subsequent TV series was a weaker facsimile of the original show and films. None of the spin-offs are worthy of the big screen, and another unknown cast would be of less interest to the general public than Enterprise, if that’s possible. To rebuild a fan base, they need something new, yet familiar; something with a brand name but which also seems sexier and more dangerous. Most of all, they need a gimmick. A reboot, if done well, if their best option, similar to how the new Daniel Craig Bond is trying to wake that series out of his “serial syndrome” doldrums.
Every character in the history of stage and screen is bigger than their actor, and every actor is replaceable, including Shatner. Whether or not they’ll do it right remains to be seen.
4. alfie replies at 6th November 2006, 5:48 pm :
Who would want to step into shatners shoes and play kirk??
5. Lou_Sytsma replies at 6th November 2006, 7:09 pm :
A young, hungry actor perhaps?
I don’t get the inconsistency here. Why is it OK to recast Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Superman, Batman etc etc - but not Star Trek? The original cast is part of modern mythology, recasting is a given.
If the story is good the movie will suceed.
6. Rafael replies at 6th November 2006, 7:18 pm :
What about Matt Damon as a young Kirk? Oh Jeez don’t get me started….
7. Marina replies at 6th November 2006, 7:19 pm :
I have to agree. I really think the only way to go now is to do a total rethink of Star Trek.
8. darren j seeley replies at 6th November 2006, 7:21 pm :
Not only is Shatner still Kirk, he played Kirk again, sort of, in a recent commercial (other actors were spliced in from other Trek films, as well as Shatner walking about) …and while the best part is that while folks remember him from Star Trek, he got his awards from playing Danny Crane on ‘The Practice’ spinoff, ‘Boston Legal’.
Now, if someone wanted to to a feature film on a new and improved “TJ Hooker”, that’s alright…or someone having the guts to remake Kingdom Of The Spiders, Visiting Hours…or doesn’t anyone want to revise TekWar?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Anyway…I have not been a huge supporter of the new JJ Abrams Trek film, as I feel that the powers that be should have continued post TNG movies, have one film focused more on Klingons, or intro a whole new Enterprise crew…and then proceed to knock off folks left and right in brief yet tragic ways. Red shirts? BAH! Blue shirts, green shirts, greeen skin, purple feet. EOE in the characters getting phased and disintegrations. Spare no one and no expense.
I am NOT a supporter of the reboot. I am a supporter of total choas.
9. John in Seattle replies at 7th November 2006, 10:19 am :
I agree with the re-imaging… and make it a complete… cast an ethnic actor as Kirk… African American, Asian American… it would be an incredibly bold choice and would certainly draw a line in the sand.
10. Alfredo replies at 8th November 2006, 1:06 pm :
The title of this post should read: “Shatner States The Obvious.”