Sybok in Discovery

[Ovation]

Sybok is why I rewatch Trek V. Need to cast well, though, if they’re to reuse the character.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Maybe they can finally make 'Spocktre of the Gun'.

 

[Vger23]

Sybok is why I rewatch Trek V. Need to cast well, though, if they’re to reuse the character.

Excellent point......

 

[CRM-114]

Sybok is one of the (admittedly few) reasons that I can't call TFF a flat-out bad movie. To me, it's a so-so movie with some good (or at least, interesting) elements in it.

 

[Tenacity]

Creepy Orion Man (yes, that's his name on IMDB) gave to Tilly

i wouldl love to have encountered tilly at this point, we could have talked, and danced, and kissed ...

i'm sometimes a bad person.

Why are you here?

don't all of us have SOMeTHING better to do?

 

[johnnybear]

That statement is incorrect, regardless of punctuation. There have been shown to be at least three Sareks in various timelines.

In terms of actors, the role has been played by Mark Lenard, James Frain, Jonathan SImpson, and Ben Cross, none of whom, unsuprisingly, are actually Sarek.

Interestingly, Sarek's grandfather is Solkar, the Vulcan who first made official contact with humans and listened to Oobie Doobie with Cochrane.

Mark Lenard is the TOS Sarek, Jonathan Simpson played him as a younger version in TFF and he was the spit of him with Lenard doing the voice! Ben Cross was the Kelvin edition and as we know that is another reality or universe! Frain is Sarek in yet another timeline yet again but not TOS! That position has been filled since 1967/68!
JB

 

[Tuskin38]

Mark Lenard is the TOS Sarek, Jonathan Simpson played him as a younger version in TFF and he was the spit of him with Lenard doing the voice! Ben Cross was the Kelvin edition and as we know that is another reality or universe! Frain is Sarek in yet another timeline yet again but not TOS! That position has been filled since 1967/68!
JB

Are you saying if an actor dies/retires they should never recast the character?

That’s dumb.

 

[EnderAKH]

What of Saavik? Did that sprout a new timeline?

 

[Tuskin38]

What of Saavik? Did that sprout a new timeline?

I blame the Krenim

 

[The Wormhole]

What of Saavik? Did that sprout a new timeline?

Saavik beamed aboard Grissom in the midst of some science experiment that somehow resulted in everyone aboard getting their appearance changed. David Marcus beamed aboard five minutes later and was spared a transformation.

Let it be canon from here on out.

 

[Hythlodeus]

Frain is Sarek in yet another timeline yet again but not TOS!

*sighs* well, Frain can't be Sarek in TOS, since there haven't been new TOS episodes for...let's say a couple of decades.
But DSC sure as hell is in the same timeline

 

[johnnybear]

Are you saying if an actor dies/retires they should never recast the character?

That’s dumb.

Logically unless there is an on screen explanation then no!
JB

 

[johnnybear]

*sighs* well, Frain can't be Sarek in TOS, since there haven't been new TOS episodes for...let's say a couple of decades.
But DSC sure as hell is in the same timeline

Oh no it's not!
JB

 

[Dukhat]

Logically unless there is an on screen explanation then no!
JB

Why the hell do you need an onscreen explanation as to why a part is recast if an actor dies? That has nothing to do with what's going on in the universe of the show.

 

[Tuskin38]

I'm pretty sure johnnybear is just messing with us.

 

[Dukhat]

I somehow doubt that.

 

[Tuskin38]

I somehow doubt that.

I don't believe at all that they think an in-universe recast needs an explanation.

 

[Dukhat]

I don't believe at all that they think an in-universe recast needs an explanation.

If by "they" you mean johnnybear, I stand by what I wrote.

 

[johnnybear]

Why the hell do you need an onscreen explanation as to why a part is recast if an actor dies? That has nothing to do with what's going on in the universe of the show.

If it is another production, nothing to do with the original, then it is okay to recast the part! but I stand by what I wrote, if the actor is unavailable then they should opt for a new character, unless there is a mighty good reason for the new look! Transmogrification or regeneration or even rejuvenation!
JB

 

[XCV330]

If it is another production, nothing to do with the original, then it is okay to recast the part! but I stand by what I wrote, if the actor is unavailable then they should opt for a new character, unless there is a mighty good reason for the new look! Transmogrification or regeneration or even rejuvenation!
JB

All productions of Shakespeare's plays apparently stopped having valid productions in the early 1600's


oh..forgot to add the

!