Mumy is also well known for Barnes & Barnes. Dead Puppies and Fish Heads.
Spoilers Star Trek: Prodigy and the Novels
- Thread starter Mike Doyle
- Start date
And of course, Mumy was one of the best-known child actors of the sixties, even before Lost in Space.
After watching "All The World's A Stage", I have a question:
Memory Alpha's page on Ensign Garrovick says that his first name (David) was established in TOS - it's apparently on the door to his quarters. So why do the various novels featuring him, all ignore this? He seems to have a different first name in every novel he appears in. Why didn't they just use David, since it was actually in the series?
Memory Alpha's page on Ensign Garrovick says that his first name (David) was established in TOS - it's apparently on the door to his quarters. So why do the various novels featuring him, all ignore this? He seems to have a different first name in every novel he appears in. Why didn't they just use David, since it was actually in the series?
Checking its history, I see that the Memory Alpha article wasn't renamed "David Garrovick" until just nine months ago, February 2022. Before then, it just said "Ensign Garrovick." The Concordance and the Encyclopedia also just call him Ensign Garrovick, no first name. Presumably the sign on Garrovick's quarters was illegible until the HD remastering, so nobody actually knew it said David before then (the name was in James Blish's adaptation, but there was no proof that it was canonical). Much like how nobody knew that the "Comsol" referenced by Uhura in "The Menagerie" was a reference to Admiral Robert Comsol (rather than Commander, Solar Forces as was generally assumed) until the HD remaster let us read the signature on General Order 7.
Last edited:
And Lieutenant Kellin from DS9.
(fun fact: Mumy had always wanted to appear on DS9 but they kept wanting him to play an alien. He held out until he could play a human.)
Ah, that makes sense.
What? The Enterprisians said his name was Ensonn.
Hm. I guess Memory Alpha is going by Blish's use of "David," which the blur resembles.
To chime in very belatedly with an observation about Brikars; AFAIK the only Brikars we've ever seen depicted visually (in any official context) are Zak and his mother (who appeared in a photo in an issue of the comics). Zak's mother was depicted as literally just Zak wearing a dress (leading to the assumption that all Brikars look like that).
It's possible that Brikar have a wide range of physical body types, and the Kebrons just happen to have a distinct (and mildly hilarious) family resemblance.
It's possible that Brikar have a wide range of physical body types, and the Kebrons just happen to have a distinct (and mildly hilarious) family resemblance.
A bigger change is the fact the show is showing multiple subspecies of Tellarite.
Yeah. I think at this point that there are only really three ways to go with the Tellarites:
- Rationalize the discrepancies by asserting that there are multiple subspecies of Tellarites
- Rationalize the discrepancies by asserting that "Tellarite" is a political or cultural identity, and that Tellarite society consists of multiple sentient species
- Ignore the discrepancies and pretend there's no contradiction in the depiction of fundamental Tellarite anatomy such as number of digits
In other words, the same as with the Klingons, Andorians, Gorn, and every other species that's been redesigned over Trek history. I vote for option 3 -- accept that this is a work of fiction and visual artistry, and different artists employ different styles. If we don't need an in-story explanation for why Saavik's or Ziyal's or Pike's appearance changed, we don't need one for why an alien species's appearance changed. One is due to a change in actors, the other due to a change in makeup artists (or character designers in animation). It's as simple as that.
The "Klingon Changes" being in-universe feels like an answer in need of a question I admit. I feel like there were some good ones like John Ford but I much prefer THE FINAL REFLECTION's answers to we got on screen. I also feel it makes an expectation for explanations like DISCO's Klingons.
This case is a bit different, though, isn't it? It's two different designs in the same show from the same artists that coexist.
Not that different.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Jankom_Pog?file=Jankom_Pog_in_uniform.jpg
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Noum?file=Noum.jpg
The nose design is basically the same, and they both have furrowed foreheads and spots around the hairline. The color of Noum's eyebrows and the top/middle portion of his hair is pretty close to Jankom's too. The main difference is that Noum has tusks and jutting cheekbones, but maybe the idea is that Jankom is too young to have grown those yet.
In light of these questions of artistic design (especially considering how some tie-ins have endeavoured to walk the line recently between the ways in which TOS and DSC/SNW have depicted the same era), what I found most interesting was that the Enterprise bridge consoles and shuttlecraft were recreated entirely in the TOS style, with no visual references to those later interpretations--even though the visual artists were modelling those objects from scratch and could've chosen to go in a different direction.
I think it's the fingers that prompted this whole discussion.
Similar threads
