Shatner is the one and only Captain Kirk

But I don't know why they didn't just stick with Jeffrey Hunter as Captain Pike instead of switching to Shatner as Kirk.

Hunter was a better actor, was better looking, and was more convincing at the whole alien-battling thing than Shatner in the first place.

Does anyone know why they dumped Hunter?

Because Hunter had a very controling wife/manager and she demanding way too much money for him to do the role. They said no way and hired Mr. Shatner, and never looked back. Fate deals these hands and it was the best one...

I thought it was because of the accident that he had that he died in or after surgery from. I suppose a check into the paralleling time lines would be in order. I never heard the stuff about his wife

I agree. Shatner will always be the one and only James T. Kirk. If they want a someone to play his relative, fine, but don't change history, for the sake of all of us "trekkies". What's next, a Mr. Sprock???

I loved William Shatner in 'Nuremburg,' I loved him in 'Trek' and I love him in 'Boston Legal.' Is any other actor keeping me up between 4 and 5 every Sunday morning to watch episodes I've seen dozens of times already? Not a one! Shatner/Kirk is still my hero!

He died May 27, 1969, his wife was very controlling

first pilot was screened for Hunter's wife. She stated after the screening that Hunter would not be returning for the second pilot, as he was a "movie star" and did not do television.

Those around him would talk very badly about her, they say she is the one own ruined his career studios stopped calling because of her.

i for one love starttrec but i thought captain kirk wasn't the one i woould like to see return

Personally, I think they should have casted Kevin Pollack :)

Jump to time index 1:20 hehe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_kZJJUc4mQ&feature=related

I do hope they fixed the Siberius thing in post-edit.

Hunter was in the original pilot for the series. NBC asked for a second pilot, with some changes to the series. Before the second pilot was made, Hunter died in an accident at home (he fell in the shower and hit his head and died). After the show became a series, they cut up the original pilot and turned it into a two-part episode called "The Menagerie".

If you really want to get picky about Kirk's middle name, originally it was "James R. Kirk", as printed on the tombstone scene in the episode titled "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (Episode #2). It's toward the end, when Kirk is fighting his old friend played by Gary Lockwood. There is a grave with a tombstone for Kirk to be buried in, and the tombstone says "James R. Kirk".

Surely that was "James TIBERIUS Kirk"! Also, why is the kid in the clip holding a lightsabre? Maybe he was in StarStar TrekWars. Either way, Shatner rules!

To be a little more than picky actually. The Siberious item shows a lack of editorial ability I find more and more annoying. it's great t be the guy that gets the story out first but please. "James S. Kirk"... James... S. Kirk...." Done in Shatner style... Nope doesn't ring a bell. It also makes me then wonder if the author even knows what they are talking about when it is such an obvious error. I am not a trekkie either, just a reader. And even I know it was James... T. Kirk, captain of the Enterprise. Seee there's that familiar ring...

I may be dense here, but isn't this the point of the article. The writer pointed out that this was a mistake.

the problem with this article is that the kid who played Kirk in the movie DID NOT SAY "Siberius". he said "Tiberius". it sounds like he said it, but if you pay an iota of attention, you'll know that that's a "T" there, not an "S".

Please, Bob Orci is a Trekkie through and through. he wouldn't make this error. try to come up with something better next time. no doubt, the Shatman is the definitive Kirk, just as Sean Connery was the definitive Bond. let's not get childish here. nobody's getting any younger -- not you, not me, not the TOS cast. this is a movie that will jumpstart a dying franchise. let's all celebrate that which survives. ;)

peace and long life to all...

a lifelong Trekkie.

i sincerely hope this siberius-business is just a lisp, or that the author wasnt paying attention. thats a HUGE, DEVISTATINGLY EMBARRASSING error, if it did occur, and its making me cringe just thinking about it. and not only for the reason that anyone under 30 probably would even notice the mistake. :(

It is "Trekker" not "trekkie."

They made a lot of noise like this before Star Trek TNG came out. "It wouldn't be the same without the original characters." "They made Spock a robot......" Yet, it went on to surpass the original series in episodes and was great in its own right. I am psyched to see the new movie. As a "pre-quel" I am interested in how well it dovetails with the other shows before it.

IMO Kirk wasn't even the best captain. TNG had the best in Picard.

Trekkers are really the class fans that loves the shows and follow it .. Trekkie's were the first they are die hard, costume dressing, and line quoting fans.

Most people prefer to be called Trekkers...

IMO Kirk wasn't even the best captain. TNG had the best in Picard.

Agreed. Everything after TNG pretty much ruined the franchise. Personally I think they started believing their own crap about the future and alienated ( no pun intended ) their core audience, which was primarily white and male. By the time Enterprise rolled around, it was too late. I can imagine white preteen boys running around pretending to be Kirk, but somehow I don't think they envision themselves as Sisko or Janeway. If you cannot abstract yourself into the role of hero, then your fiction is a dud.

I dunno - dewintre200

I REALLY liked the Voyager series. Hell -- I am Janeway, almost every halloween!!

TNG was really good, but, the original series is the best. Got em all on video, and watch and re-watch!!!! FAV--the one with Terri Garr and the black "she" cat, when the ship time warps back to earth.

I've watched that trailer plenty of times, the kid is just letting th "s" at the end of "James" slop a bit into the next word. It never sounded to me like he said "Siberious"

Someone should get their hearing checked, or possibly watch and listen closer...more than once, before babbling a bunch of b*llsh*t

James Siberius Kirk... Don't they believe in re-takes? So pronounce it right!

I like William Shatner. Always have, and he is a great actor and a very nice man. He has a home in KY not far from where I live, and I hope that one day, if I'm lucky, and the earth takes a little spin off it's axis, I'll get to see him in real life. I'll probably faint.

The kid says Tiberius, he just has a lisp. I've seen the movie and it's great, going to see it again in IMAX tonight!

dewintre200: "Agreed. Everything after TNG pretty much ruined the franchise. Personally I think they started believing their own crap about the future and alienated ( no pun intended ) their core audience, which was primarily white and male."

I agree/disagree partially, Deep Space 9 was bad--I didn't like the captain Sysko and the idiotic doctor, and that other franchise Babylon, that nobody watches... Voyager is very good, I would rate it only slightly below TNG.

I disagree. I have always enjoyed the Star Trek Series, but to me William Shatner always seemed a little slimey in a sex offender/child molester kind of way. Maybe it was the overdramatized drawl he spoke in, or the kind of oily look of his hair. His shirt was definetly too tight, and his body was ok, but never great. I personally like the new young James Kirk, he's cute and I can't wait for the fight scene between him and Spock.

which is itself ridiculous. Spock wouldn't fight anyone unless he was in Ponn Farr.

I personally like the new young James Kirk, he's cute and I can't wait for the fight scene between him and Spock

I'm sure 40 years from now he'll look as antiquated and period as any of the hippies from the old show. Of course, this assumes that 40 years from now anyone will care to watch this movie or speak English.

Shatner played Kirk like he was playing Hamlet on stage. Overly emotional, in-your-face, cartoonish, almost campy (like the Batman TV series). Spock, Scottie & Uhura were the best characters, a lot more believable.

I was in my teens when Star Trek debuted, and I firmly believe that TNG & Voyager are much better show.

Of course they were better shows, the effects and sets were better but I'm sorry you might have been a teenager when the original series came out and now your just an old coot that can't see the forest through the trees, but I was just a kid when it started in 66 and have seen all of the series and not one of them is as cool or has the same wonder that the original series had. Same with the Star Wars series - Star Wars (now episode IV - A New Hope) had the magic and wonder that the others didn't capture. Empire is the best and the others lag behind but not better than the 1st.

The Original Series is all that matters to me in the Star Trek world. The story and characters always came first, rather than stupid special effects or trying to make the weirdest villain possible. That magic seemed to be lost with the series after the original.

The OS was blessed with some very creative and talented set designers and costume people who made up light years for what was lacking in a dollar budget. The prime colors of red, blue and yellow were used in a creative shorthand for suggesting universes. This limitation on budget and accent on creativity was perfectly complimented by the emotive acting styles used by Shatner and company.

This is truly what good actors do. They create a style that complements the production's requirements.

I am eager to see this new ST, but I am bracing myself for yet another failure. Nothing has yet lived up to the OS first 2 seasons. Perhaps one day, someone will get smart and make a new ST movie on a shoestring budget with innovative talent and if we're lucky, we might have something worth watching.

Cm - I met James Doohan once, he was truly a nice person. It was worth standing in line for an hour. Those are the type of actors fans like best. RIP James!

Um no, I don't think so. Shatner has a lounge lizard quality. Unfortunately, not attractive at all.

Shatner had his appeal in the 60's just like Picard had his appeal in the 80's. It was consistent with the time period.

I like that movie he did in Esperanto.

I agree with DW. I found him to be very attractive.

I watched Star Trek when it was on during its first run and Shatner was just icky, no doubt about it. I think he was poorly cast as Kirk. But then again, there are a lot of modern day actors that are considered very sexy and I just don't get it. For example, why does anyone like Tom Cruise? I just don't understand.

Janeinthisworld-- to each, his own.

I never thought of Shatner as a lounge lizard, and I like Tom Cruise. I'm mystified what people see in Shia Labeouf.

I'm a little surpised Hollywood hasn't made a Kirk vs. Picard movie yet, as they've done with Aliens versus Predator, Freddie versus Jason, the inevitable Batman versus Popeye.

(BTW: The answer to the question depends on how much space the two captains have to fight in)

I believe it was called Generations...

Picard was good but Kirk was better. If your still arguing that one then your lost in the Delta Quadrant.

Kirk would beat the s.h.i.t. out of sissy pants French boy ! Book it !

Kirk would beat the s.h.i.t. out of sissy pants French boy ! Book it !

I'm sure Kirk would be tricked, out-maneuvered and out-thought by Picard on some level. I can imagine a Kirk waiting for a fist-fight on some desert planet while Picard is halfway to the prize.

Find your originality! Copy Caters!

The trends of remaking old movies and television shows and continuing franchises into the third and fourth decades test more than Hollywood's originality. They demonstrate that source material and fans themselves are completely disregarded. It's tempting to remake something with the creative potential of James Bond, Batman, Star Trek, and Transformers. However, since a history is established, some rules should apply. And of course, Hollywood rejects any such restraint (the curious decisions to make the Autobots autistic, 007 Pierce Brosnan, Batman a ninja trained by the illuminati are just a few modest examples).

Radical license kind of made sense in the days before the internet (when fans complained invisibly to each other through editorials in fan club newsletters and trade publications). Fanboys abused by Sylvester Stallone's Judge Dredd had little ability to impact theater receipts. However, everything's changed now. It's surprising Hollywood routinely ignores a passionate base who can decry inconsistencies on prominent (and legitimate) websites ranging from entertainment outlets to Wikipedia.

It's also odd that Hollywood would so happily alienate the very people who will spend the most on peripheral marketing (action figures, Happy Meal toys, soda cans, special edition DVD's, etc.). Since DVD sales and marketing outweigh theater receipts in the modern production company's projections, this should be counter productive.

I'm no fanboy. But I think the fanboys provide a line of defense to keep creative teams honest. While I don't crave doctrinaire adherence to the canon, I care enough that I don't want to see Hollywood transform Mr. Spock into Jar Jar Binks or Gordon Shumway. I think Hollywood's natural tendency is to do that, despite the damage it does to a franchise. I'm hoping something with the sheer convention-industrial plant of Star Trek can reign in Hollywood's more destructive tendencies.

If this Star Trek movie screws up, which it probably will, I want the geeks to burn the internet to the ground. I hope the backlash is cataclysmic, like a World Cup defeat or old-fashioned race riot. I want the movie companies to have to wince before they even think about remaking another old property. Because it it's Star Trek today, what's next?

"If this Star Trek movie screws up, which it probably will, I want the geeks to burn the internet to the ground. I hope the backlash is cataclysmic, like a World Cup defeat or old-fashioned race riot. I want the movie companies to have to wince before they even think about remaking another old property. Because it it's Star Trek today, what's next?"

You sir, deserve a medal.

Steech - Although most people won't be as disgusted as my husband and I are about this, but they're remaking one of the most ground-breaking sci-fi films ever created, Metropolis.If you want to talk about sacred ground, film and sci-fi aficionados know that this is one movie that can never be remade and done well. You don't try to remake a Fritz Lang. It's just as bad as wreaking havoc on "Star Trek" like it appears JJ Abrams has done as far as isolating true fans, and even more of an affront to filmdom.

Hey, Capt Tripps, did you like "The Stand"? When I see your name, it is a jolt!

I agree with Steech-- Hollywood is remaking old favorites because they have run out of ideas for new stories-- or it is too costly to develop new stories. In many cases, there is some king of the hill saying, Gee, I wonder what Kirk would have been like as a cadet? Let's cast some relative unknown and explore this... Instead, they take a tried and true model, 'tweak' it here and there, and manage to destroy the fantasy for those of us who are loyal to the original shows. If they had taken the original series idea and just made a new creative line, it would be easier to swallow.

In Star Trek's case, I enjoyed the different character/stories of the same universe at different times and places, i.e. Next Generation. It was simple variation on a theme that remained fairly true to the original idea.

Some remakes are as good as the original, or were just made made truer to the times. The example I can think of is "Meet Joe Black"; the original 1930's movie was called "Death Takes a Holiday". In the original movie, Death, Fredrich March, spends a weekend at an English country house where he meets and falls in love with a beautiful Countess, whose country was destroyed in WWI. No one in the entire world dies the entire weekend. At the end, the Countess, who has fallen in love with him, joins him in his work. It had oddly funny moments of reports of people falling out of buildings, falling 33 stories and surviving the fall.

I did not like the remake of "The Stepford Wives" and felt it missed the point entirely. In the original, the wives had been brain-washed, not replaced by robots, and it was infinitely scarier.

Remember "Soylent Green"? Perhaps that is an idea whose time has come for a remake-- just find someone like Edward G. Robinson to play the old guy... It is certainly more to the point of today's over-population problems and greenhouse gases.

Sick,

When I wrote, "if it's Star Trek today, what's next?" I distinctly had Metropolis and 2001: A Space Odyssey in mind. I did not know they were remaking Metropolis and revile at the news.

There are essentially differing tiers of cinema. It's probably not right to consider individual movies sacrosanct, but there is definitely a class of movies that are made as art pieces. Metropolis, 2001, Brazil, Eraserhead, Raging Bull, the list can go on and on and is made of a disparate group of films. These things shouldn't be touched, as a matter of principle.

Fine artists don't attempt to reproduce Titians, Picassos, or Motherwells for a reason. You'd think filmmakers would apply that lesson to film.

I think the other tiers of films make up what Dowser was talking about when he mentioned improving Death Takes A Holiday. I think Dowser's got a really solid point and I hope Hollywood can responsibly identify the potential cases where they can improve a classic film and sidestep the unneccessary ones.

Because, for every Meet Joe Black, a dozen properties are ruined in failed experiments like The Pink Panther and The Poseidon Adventure. When they try to adapt a whole TV show, the product is chaos. The same is true of remaking children's films (please do NOT remake The Shaggy Dog!) and camp films (we do not need a new Bullitt!).

Absolutely no one was as funny as Peter Sellers in The Pink Panther, and I love Steve Martin... There are many movies that should be left to stand as is-- Can anyone imagine To Kill a Mockinbird without Gregory Peck?

Dear Steech, I am a she... :-) My screenname is for my occupation; I am a hydrogeologist. Its ok by me if most people think I'm a guy, because they seem to respond more respectfully to men. I don't want to sail under false colors with you-- Hope you have a wonderful day and glad that you made it home safe!

they said the same thing about ll the others. Wait til you watch it before judging it, goo or bad.

and the reason canon matters is, they're making it based on prviously existing characters using new actors. So there is already an expectation built into thing tht my or may not be met.

Casino Royale was horrible.

quantum of soilace was worse.

Gee, I liked both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. I like Daniel Craig. He played a great part in that movie about the Jewish people saved during WWII... We saw it and I just can't think of the name.

Hello! Star Trek is FICTION. James T Kirk is NOT a real person. He's a character in a story. Sorry to tell you, but there are people who would be more than willing to reinvent their parents, but we can only do that in pretendland, and guess what! Star Trek takes place in pretendland.

Silliness, there is no rule that says movies and tv shows cannot be remade with new actors. It happens on soap operas and sitcoms all the time. See it or not, but don't get your underwear in a bunch about it. Definetly not worth it.

You too huh?

I'll get flamed for saying it, but I hated seeing how they put multiple sex scenes into this new movie. They've thrown canon out the air lock.

Sci-Fi has usually never done well in theaters. Star Wars and Star Trek were the only big ones. A few individual successes, but most poeple say "Ewww" if you mention Sci-Fi. So now they've turned it into the regular run of the mill action flick.

After all, they are only after money, not what will make the fans happy.

Sci Fi doesn't do well in theatres? Huh?

Have you looked in a movie store, or rental store, at the relative size of the Sci-Fi section compared to things like Comedy, Drama, and Action? It's usually the smallest. If Sci-Fi did well financialy Hollywood would be pumping them out in the hundreds, not in small parcels.

Actually, the main reason there isn't a huge sci-fi section is that most of the Sci-FI geeks "buy" the movie.

Let's not forget that Sci-Fi flicks costs TONS of money to make.

Yes, but, for the most part, it is fun to watch!

Frankly, I've enjoye aging right along there with Kirk. He is older than I, but he is still looks pretty darn good to me! And I would go just about any place to see Nimoy again... I miss all my favorite actors and wish I could see them again-- in just about any role they would care to play.

uh uh, and that's why he died a gimp.

No he was not... Hunter was just another pretty face and trying to keep his career alive, which as I said earlier, his wife killed for being such a B***h . He was a major alcoholic and the autopsy proved that, possible stroke, and died in surgery for the head injury from a fall in his home.

lol... wow. mild attempt at humor lost on these primitive life forms... i'm going back to watching Babylon 5

funny!

I agree. I saw a sneak preview, and it is very cool. You can't come into this movie expecting anything. SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! There is a time travel/alternate timeline element to the story which makes this version completely new and not beholden to the TOS dogma. The Kirk in this movie has a different history than Shatner's Kirk, so comparisons are useless. Go see it and judge for yourself.

This article is terrible. Did the author even see the movie? And by the way, he does say Tiberius; the kid just has a slight lisp, and huge front teeth. They mention the name a couple of times and it's always Tiberius.

So wait, he has to fight the smoke monster from the Island?

DHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARMA!

LOL, I did feel a little deja vu when they explained it. It makes sense, JJ would have been developing the movie at the same time this season of Lost was being written! I was like hmmm, recycle ideas much?