Vigilance said:
So one actor has played the character for a long time.
And?
Either this character is totally unique in the thousands year old history of drama or he, like every other character ever created, or he, like every other character ever created, can be recast.
I mean, there's no analogy that will satisfy people.
Because really, Shatner PLAYED Kirk for 3 seasons of TV, 2 years of voice work and then 6 movies... so what's more important is the time he has been ASSOCIATED with the role, like Alec Guiness and Obi Wan.
No, there is no PERFECT ANALOGY.
Just a sea of millions of characters, all of whom can be recast, and 2 or 3 who cant.
That's what people seem to be arguing here and it's bunk.
As I said in another post that this is my opinion. I don't want to see another actor play Kirk I have explained why it is different to me than the examples you brought up. I really don't appreciate having my personal opinion of why I don't want to see a new Kirk labeled as bunk.
None of those examples were the same. I will give you an example Tigh on Battlestar Galatica or any character for that matter on the new show. In no way at all are they anything like the characters on BSG TOS. They are not meant to be, the shows are not even ment to be related. The new show is not a contiunation of the old show nor is it the same show as before having new stories told about it.
So the actors playing these roles are not playing the same character as the actors who played them before.
In the case of Obi Won it was two actors playing the same role at the characters different stages of life the same as River Phoenix playing a Young Indy in the last movie or the actor playing the young indy. Or even on Stargate when the Asgard cloned Jack and made a younger version of him. All these actors worked on their mannerism to make the younger version of the character the same as the older version.
As I said before if they want to make a new Trek using a young Kirk that would be one thing. I personally am tired of recycling of shows and would like to see something new. But if they are just planning on retelling the voyages of the Enterprise under Kirk's command then I am not interested in seeing it because to me there is only one James T Kirk and that is William Shatner. Or any of the other character as well.
I am a major trekkie and while the restart of BSG bothered me a little there is no way I am intrested in seeing that done in the Trek universe. I don't want to see everything that came before just waved away and a new timeline and cannon started. This is my personal opinion. Now for people who don't care or would love to see a new Trek made like this that is their opinion and neither opinion is more valid than the other.
As for some of the other examples you mentioned I know several people who won't watch any Bond other than Connery. I don't care because I read the Bond novels before I ever saw a movie the same way I read Sherlock Holmes before seeing a movie or tV show. I had a pretty good idea in my mind about the characters and how they were supposed to me long before I saw it acted out. Which is why some of the actors who play Holmes I like better than others because I feel that they captured who Holmes is better than some others. I hate the way they portray Watson as a bumbling idiot in the Basil Rathbone movies he is not Watson as far as I am concerned.
Right now in Stargate fandom a lot of fans are up in arms over the idea of Devlin making the sequels he had planned after the first movie mainly because he wants to use the original actors Kurt Russel and James Spader. They feel that it is an insult to the actors who have played the characters on the tV show for the last ten years.
I don't feel that way because the movie has a different mythos than the TV show the aliens are a different species than the Gou'ld as one example. To me the movies characters are different even O'neil name is spelled differently. So I don't see a problem with it. But if they decided to make Stargate SG 1 movies with all new cast I would feel the same way as I do about replacing the original trek actors. I would not want to watch it.
In another example when they replaced Dumbledore in the Harry Potter movies after Richard Harris's death a lot of the fans did not like Michael Gambon. I liked him better than Richard Harris because to me the new actor was more how I pictured Dumbledore from the books. But when they replaced Peter Duel's character in Alias Smith and Jones after his death I could not watch it no matter how good the actor was he was not Hannibal Hayes to me and not to most of the other fans either the ratings plummented.
You brought up Hamlet as an example. Here is why that is different to me in the play hamlet the character starts at one point of the characters development moves through the play until his death at the end. It does not deviate from this path. Sure I have seen Hamlet done with a full set and medevial costumes and props and I have seen it done on a bare stage no props with the actors in street clothes. The sets may be different but Hamlet's journey is not. The actors playing Hamlet don't change that journey. Hamlet does not evolve and change every actor who plays Hamlet takes the same journey.
In the Bond movies they are not really related they don't really tell one continuous storyline. What happens in one movie does not carry on into the next. This is very unlike a TV show where the character evolves and changes as the show goes on. It is why TV actors are often more closely identified with a role than an actor who plays a role in a play or movie.
Anyway I hope this long post has explained why
I don't want to see another play Kirk as an adult. Or any of the other characters replaced.
But who knows how Picard, Kirk or Sisko would have fared "stranded" in the Delta Quadrant. It was clearly not the same situation as the other Captains had. 
