-----------------------------
Q. Why Kirk, Spock and McCoy? Why not new characters set in the same timeline?
A. Though we touch on this in others questions in the FAQ, we thought a full explanation was in order. Star Trek: Phase II's producers/crew feel that Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the rest should be treated as "classic" characters like Willy Loman from Death of a Salesman, Gandalf from Lord of the Rings or even Hamlet, Othello or Romeo. Many actors have and can play the roles, each offering a different interpretation of said character. Though the character is the same, the interpretation of the actor is what's in question. We feel that the crew of the Enterprise has more to teach us about life and each other than has been explored to date. We also feel the new actors can add to the legend in a believable and contemporary way. The timelessness of the classic characters was recognized by JJ Abrams, as the new Star Trek movie scheduled for release in December 2008, features the classic series crew presented in a new and different way. The members of the Phase II production team prefer the classic look and feel of the original series and present our episodes as if it were the continuation of the original 5-year mission.
You know what? While I think it's pretty arrogant to put Kirk, Spock, and McCoy up there with Shakesphere characters, I actually get this rationale. This is the first reason I've ever heard for using the same characters that's made any sense to me. I mean, you have to buy into the rationale that they're iconic characters who stand the test of time and will still be getting played by actors 100 years from now, and I don't. But if you buy into that, this makes sense.
Well, you don't really have to go quite
that far. Just think of it as any play; they get different actors for the same roles all the time. Much more so for any play that gets done in high school productions. The alternate route, that Kick, Spock, and McCoy can
only be played by Shatner, Nimoy, and the no-longer-with-us Kelley, seems more unnecessarily limiting.
If you look at that paragraph and condense it down to "Kirk is on the same level as Hamlet", yeah, you could raise an eyebrow or two, but those are the last references cited, with an "even" before them. They're much closer to Gandalf's level and, in probably many circles, more well-known than Willy Loman.
