If you're like me when you think of James T. Kirk, your mind immediately conjures up that classic image of... Matt Damon?
Okay, so maybe that's what no one thinks when they hear the name Capt. Kirk, but if J.J. Abrams gets his way, that's exactly who we're going to get. As everyone is most likely aware, the new Star Trek movie is going to be a prequel that follows Kirk and Spock's formative years at Star Fleet Academy. The current line of thought is that Star Trek is a broken franchise, so why not take it back to a time that everyone loves?
To a studio executive, I guess I can see the logic behind this. After all, even though there have been four incarnations of Trek since Shatner first sat in the captain's chair, it's that original version people still think back to. So to get those lapsed Trekkies back into the fold, why not bring Kirk back to the big screen?
Only, without William Shatner, is it really Kirk? Most roles, be they as classic as Hamlet or as iconic as Superman, are larger than any one actor. Anyone can play the role as long as they stay true to a few basic elements. However, other roles are so intwined with one actor that little to no distinction can be made between the two.
For close to 40 years, Shatner was James Kirk, and as the actor aged, so too did Kirk. We watched him go from a young captain blasting into new frontiers to aged war horse looking to finally settle down. We were even there when he died and watched him breath his final breath.
William Shatner, no matter how much he denies it, is Captain Kirk.
While the new Star Trek movie may well be the best in the series, the fact will still remain that, Matt Damon or not, that will not be Captain Kirk on the big screen. Unless Matt Damon spends an hour and a half doing his best William Shatner impression (and really, who wants to see that?) no audience will buy it.
Even young people who may be really seeing Star Trek for the first time will all still have a passing knowledge of the Kirk character. Hell, turn to Cartoon Network or sit on Nickelodeon for long enough, and one cartoon character or another is bound to present an ode to Shatner's Kirk.
Leave the past just where it is. When the time came to make Star Trek fresh back in the 80's for a new audience, the producers fast forwarded everything to about one hundred years into the future. The basics were all still there, but the playground now had a fresh coat of paint. New stories could be told while keeping a foot planted in the familiar. Why not do that again? We've mined the Next Generation era to death. We've seen the beginnings of the Federation. Why not fast forward one hundred more years, or even five hundred years? Why not take a chance?
But don't try to do Kirk without William Shatner. No one's buying that. If that's the best anyone can do, then just let the franchise rest in peace.