I had no idea. It turns out it's a perfectly cromulent word.
News Spock has already been cast
- Thread starter Red Panda
- Start date
- Status
There's the problem of... even if Leonard Nimoy were alive, he'd be 87. I'm sure he'd give his blessing for someone else to play Spock in Discovery. He already did with Star Trek (2009).
Spock isn't the sacredest of Holies, to use a phrase from "The Omega Glory". He's Spock, not Spockificious. Even Gods and Goddesses get recast.
And, not to knock DSC -- because that's my team -- but, with all due respect to the series, it's lower profile than the Abrams films. It is. And Spock has already been recast in an area where there would be a lot more exposure than Discovery. Recasting Spock on Disco is nothing.
Spock isn't the sacredest of Holies, to use a phrase from "The Omega Glory". He's Spock, not Spockificious. Even Gods and Goddesses get recast.
And, not to knock DSC -- because that's my team -- but, with all due respect to the series, it's lower profile than the Abrams films. It is. And Spock has already been recast in an area where there would be a lot more exposure than Discovery. Recasting Spock on Disco is nothing.
Last edited:
Pet peeve: the verb is "cast," not "casted."
He was cast in 1964, not "casted."
Nothing personal. I keep seeing "casted" instead of "cast" everywhere these days and it's like nails scraping on a chalkboard. It's an insidious new usage that seems to be spreading like a virus . . . .
See also people confusing role with "roll." Nimoy was perfect in the role of Spock, not "roll."
Drives me nuts, I tell you.
Tip of the iceberg.
"A accident"....instead of the correct "an accident".
"An historical"....instead of the correct "a historical".
That kind of stuff has been advancing since the 80s and it's very annoying.
Unless all of my teachers and professors were wrong....
You sound like the 6th Doctor. I just listened to one of his latest stories where he spends the entire time correcting the grammar of the villains just to annoy them.
I was already being "that guy," so bring it on.
Good point, although I've been seeing it used, more and more often, to refer to the present and future as well.
"Big news! Gal Gadot was just casted as Wonder Woman!"
"So-and-So should be casted as Captain Iguana!"
"Who do you think will be casted as Spock?"
Makes my skin crawl.
But they're the exact same characters, just two different timelines.
A new Spock in Discovery is no different to like when they'd have a new Batman in the 90s. It's the same universe, same character, just a different actor.
Yep, and even in the reboot movie, Spock Prime recognizes Chris Pine as Kirk. The assumption is that Kirk always looks like Kirk, even when the part has been recast. Just as nobody noticed when Saavik suddenly went from looking like Kirstie Alley to Robin Curtis.
It's just a standard theatrical conceit, involving the audience's willing suspension of disbelief.
Not Trek fandom's strong suit.
You sound like the 6th Doctor. I just listened to one of his latest stories where he spends the entire time correcting the grammar of the villains just to annoy them.
I'm an editor. It's baked into my DNA at this point.
My girlfriend can vouch for this. I've been known to proofread the menus at restaurants . . .
Agreed! Similarly I've seen a lot of Star Trek fans getting uppity that they gave the TV side of the franchise a refreshed look. I assumed everyone, like the fans, would know in-universe the characters are none-the-wiser they've been updated to 2018, to them it's always looked like it does now. But nope, judging by the other thread about timelines, even this forum struggles! Where as the general audience doesn't. That's funny to me.Not Trek fandom's strong suit.
God forbid any of these fans become 007 or Doctor Who fans.
"But but...that's different!"
I'm an editor. It's baked into my DNA at this point.
My girlfriend can vouch for this. I've been known to proofread the menus at restaurants . . .
Guess you just missed a few things with Terminator Salvation: Cold War
Guess you just missed a few things with Terminator Salvation: Cold War
Typos happen to us all, especially under tight deadlines.
It's a minor miracle that there are no typos in any of my posts complaining about "casted." It is a perverse law of nature that any post complaining about spelling or grammar will invariably contain a typo . . ...
Visual refreshes are a good thing when technology has improved so much. My wife has only seen a little bit of Discovery but she commented it actually looks like they're a spaceship flying in space now, where as her previous impression of Star Trek was actors pretending to be in space.
I don't remember a lot of visual retcons in Who. When the old things are revisited, they usually look pretty much like they originally did. There were recently old school Cybermen and K-9 looked the same in nuWho as he did in the original. Make up techniques certainly have improved, but Martians and Sontarans basically look just as dumb as they originally did.
It is a perverse law of nature that any post complaining about spelling or grammar will invariably contain a typo . . ...
Synchronicity!!!!
I thought the word "retcon" was created to specifically describe how Doctor Who would loosely change past continuity series to series and season to season.
But design wise, they refresh classic monsters and then backtrack and then randomly have two different versions on screen at the same time. The Cybermen for example, they long established a female Cyberman would look the same as a male one, then out of nowhere they created a female design with breasts, and then they ignored that.
The loosey goosey explanation is the universe, space and time is ever changing.
There is nothing wrong with recasting as long as it's good casting.
- Status
Similar threads
