I was watching the Twilight Zone episode, "Nick of Time" when I saw that the main lead was William Shatner. Instead of saying, "oh my gosh it's William Shatner," I said, "oh my gosh, it's Captain Kirk!"I can understand why Shatner is staying away from the Star Trek front.
Even though I know (logically) that it's Shatner on screen, I don't know him personally therefore I identify his face and voice with Kirk. Emotionally, it's as if Kirk was an actor before he joined Star Fleet while the entity known as WIlliam Shatner is his flesh and bones, Earth bound avatar.
I have a friend who gets very annoyed when I say things like, "Kaiba (from Yu-Gi-Oh!) must have been pissed off when he lost the battle." He responds with, "Kaiba isn't real. He cannot feel anything." Factually, he's right. Kaiba isn't real the same way William Shatner is, but since I will never meet William Shatner then he, emotionally, exists in the same space as Kaiba.
I feel this way about most celebrities and famous folk. Yes, they exist but they are "out there," the same way that the Loch Ness Monster is "out there." I don't emotionally distinguish the "real but never verified" from the "not real" so it's easy for me to assign emotions and feelings for non-living entities (or even objects.) I can't imagine not doing it in fact. I looked over one day and saw my favorite blanket on the floor gathering dust and I felt "sad" for it. It's not real. It can't feel abandoned or neglected but the emotional response is still there.
So, what's real in the end? If characters and objects can illicit an emotional response, such as the happiness when I saw "Kirk," then why can't the concept of "Kirk" be any more real than William Shatner?
It's something to think about... in the Twilight Zone.
