Sign in to follow this  
Dillkid

Does The Animated Series count in the Star Trek canon?

Recommended Posts

Well, I didn't know where to put this so I thought I should put it here as it's TOS/TAS related.

Does The Animated Series count in the Star Trek canon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If dross like ENT and the new Movie are supposedly canon then I'd definitely consider TAS as canon. They were an imaginative set of stories that by and large stuck to what had happened in TOS.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Animated_Series

There's some conflict as to weather they consider it canon or not but they've listed tons of references that popped up in TNG and DS9 to things that happened or were mentioned first in the Animated series

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine that while only a few episodes of the "real" series (like that awful VOY one with the newts and the transwarp...Threshold?) can be comfortably overlooked, not as many people would complain if you disregarded some of the less Trek-y episodes of TAS. I think one of the reasons that it's not quite canon for some people is that it was knocked up pretty quickly, without the care of TOS, and seemed more of a children's spin-off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine that while only a few episodes of the "real" series (like that awful VOY one with the newts and the transwarp...Threshold?) can be comfortably overlooked, not as many people would complain if you disregarded some of the less Trek-y episodes of TAS. I think one of the reasons that it's not quite canon for some people is that it was knocked up pretty quickly, without the care of TOS, and seemed more of a children's spin-off.

And that most of the episodes were kind of ridiculous. :giggle:

I agree, it was more a kid's show. And GR maintained that it wasn't canon, so... I guess that's the official word on it, but I think it's in the eye of the beholder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to know what GR would think of ENT, but there's no way we'll ever know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's always controvesy over this; technically, it is not considered canon, but I think most fans do think of it as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is that the simplest rule of Trek canon is that if it happened onscreen, its canon. In which case we must include TAS. If we start saying, "well GR said TAS isn't canon", then we're left with also considering Treks V and VI non-canon, as well as several TNG episodes, and all of DS9/VOY/ENT. If we go with officially licensed material is canon, then a huge can of worms is canon, most of which is completely contradictory. "Onscreen=canon" is a good rule, and it includes TAS. Add to that Startrek.com's acceptance of TAS material, and TAS being out on DVD, and I think that's some good official recognition from Paramount of TAS.

As for the claim of it being rushed and with no regard for TOS, thats a load of bull, since Roddenberry and Fontana worked on it, and most of the writers were TOS writers, and the animators at Filmation put a lot of effort into replicating the TOS look (pink Klingon uniforms aside)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Onscreen=canon" is a good rule, and it includes TAS. Add to that Startrek.com's acceptance of TAS material, and TAS being out on DVD, and I think that's some good official recognition from Paramount of TAS.

This. It's a good rule and simple. I don't think it's something that fans can decide too, despite the apparent misconception that individuals who watch decide what is or isn't canon, usually based on whether they LIKED it or not.

I mean if I said season 4 of Voyager onwards weren't canon, because I don't like these episodes, I'd get hell for it (and quite rightfully so, too). Did I like those seasons, no, but do I say they're not canon? No, and I can't see the logic of denying something is canon based on personal opinion. :vulcan: Don't like something, fine, IGNORE it, but don't try to deny that it's canon.

I found another definition:

A canon, in terms of a fictional universe, is a body of material that is considered to be "genuine" or "official". The use of the word "canon" in reference to a set of texts derives from Biblical canon, the set of books which are regarded as scripture.[1] The term was first used in the context of fiction to refer to the Sherlock Holmes stories and novels written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, to distinguish those works from subsequent pastiches by other authors.

By this, anything on screen created by Paramount is Canon, as it's all licenced, no?

Edited by DaxFanDS9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with both of you on this. The controversy over it is really only based on it being animation rather than live action, but I don't really think that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate is as old as TAS itself. And the rule isn't so much "if it happened on screen, it's canon", it's "if it happened on screen in live action, it's canon". Opinions changed somewhat when TAS was released on DVD but I still prefer the latter interpretation. Plus, I don't believe Gene said it in reference to just the Star Trek that he created himself (it was a very general statement, which is why it annoys me when people use it to "prove" that DS9, VOY and ENT never "happened"), and additionally it's not known which parts of TFF and TUC he considered apocryphal (as much as I'd like to erase TFF from the timeline).

I mean, seriously. Have you WATCHED any of TAS? Do you REALLY want to believe that what happened in that series is part of "proper" canon? No, ta. :thumbdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen all of TAS and I actually enjoyed them. There are a few episodes I'd like to forget ('Bem'), but overall I don't think all the stories are necessarily more ludicrous than some of the TOS episodes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were some cracking episodes in TAS ... More Tribbles, More Troubles springs to mind and they had some neat races such as the Caitains and Kzinti. Besides the TOS lot were about one third brilliant, one third ok and one third cringeworthy ...Oh, and then there was Turnabout Intruder. :loopy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, seriously. Have you WATCHED any of TAS? Do you REALLY want to believe that what happened in that series is part of "proper" canon? No, ta. :thumbdown:

Check out my avatar. You better believe I've watched TAS. And own it on DVD. For me, it was like discovering a whole new season of TOS!

You can't argue that its not canon on the basis of episodes being bad, or even contradictory of later series. If that were so, then you'd have to get rid of most of third season TOS, and certainly a lot of first/second/third season ENT.

There's canon, there's apocrypha, there's continuity. I always liked Memory Alpha calling licensed Trek apocrypha, since it fit the religious connotations the word "canon" always brought to the table. Continuity, on the other hand, is how things fit together. That is -- a new Trek novel can include however much continuity it wants (to ignore or include other novels, the various comics and games, etc) but it HAS to follow canon.

Frankly, some TAS episodes are better than live action episodes, especially first season TNG! Hell "The Time Trap" episode was ripped off by VOY twice!!

The way I see it, if Gene said it wasn't cannon, then that's it.

Then we're in trouble, since none of the Trek series appears to be a cannon!

But seriously, devotion to Gene is weak since as I pointed out he disapproved of the movies, and had little to no control over TNG after the first season even when he was alive. By fourth season Piller and Berman where actively keeping things from him or showing scripts to him for approval so late in the process that he couldn't reject them totally but only provide small notes. Episodes like "Redemption" and "The Drumhead" were all done without his approval. Frankly, Gene was never quite in control of Trek as we'd like to believe -- while he was integral in getting the show off the ground in first season, second season TOS was largely the work of Gene Coon and John Meredyth Lucas and season three Roddenberry's only real presence was forcing IDIC into an episode to hawk his merchandise -- Fred Freiberger was really in control. The movies were largely Harve Bennett's deal, and season 2 of TNG was Maurice Hurley while seasons 3-5 were Michael Piller. And then he was dead.

Edited by The_Commodore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't argue that its not canon on the basis of episodes being bad, or even contradictory of later series.

I think I can. As I said in my first post in this topic, I think that canon is more subjective than a lot of people realise. For example, I happily ignore episodes such as VOY: Threshold, VOY: The Fight, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier or ENT: These are the Voyages... because I consider (the latter three, the former was at least somewhat entertaining if filled with scientific crap) them to be abysmal works of television/film and hours of my life that I would rather have spent sticking pins in my eyes. Likewise, some people don't take anything after TOS as "fact" - fine! Good for them. I'm not gonna waste my time reasoning why they should consider TNG to be the proper continuation of Star Trek.

In accordance with the above reasoning, I prefer not to believe that the centre of the galaxy is a portal to a universe filled with magic, or that Romulans can be fooled by an inflatable Enterprise, or that Spock was once cloned into a fifty-foot giant, or that stars can randomly make people shrink. Et cetera, et cetera.

I apologise for any offense my speeches may or may not have caused. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't argue that its not canon on the basis of episodes being bad, or even contradictory of later series.

I think I can. As I said in my first post in this topic, I think that canon is more subjective than a lot of people realise. For example, I happily ignore episodes such as VOY: Threshold, VOY: The Fight, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier or ENT: These are the Voyages... because I consider (the latter three, the former was at least somewhat entertaining if filled with scientific crap) them to be abysmal works of television/film and hours of my life that I would rather have spent sticking pins in my eyes. Likewise, some people don't take anything after TOS as "fact" - fine! Good for them. I'm not gonna waste my time reasoning why they should consider TNG to be the proper continuation of Star Trek.

In accordance with the above reasoning, I prefer not to believe that the centre of the galaxy is a portal to a universe filled with magic, or that Romulans can be fooled by an inflatable Enterprise, or that Spock was once cloned into a fifty-foot giant, or that stars can randomly make people shrink. Et cetera, et cetera.

I apologise for any offense my speeches may or may not have caused. :P

Yes, yes, having your own personal continuity, what you consider to be true or false, that's fine. For one I agree with you in choosing to ignore These Are the Voyages! BUT! You do not decide what is Canon. Canon is not subjective. Just like a Christian can't decide "oh, I think the Gospel of Luke is non-canonical" -- a Christian could choose to ignore what's said in the Gospel of Luke and go with whatever they feel is right; but its the Church itself that decides what is canon. Same with Star Trek. CBS/Paramount decides canon, not you. But its perfectly fine for you to say, "well, I personally ignore TAS" or whatever. But you're not the Trek Pope. Actually, ever since Berman left I have no idea who the Trek Pope is. We are without a Great Bird, it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i bought the series on DVD for $15 at walmart. I have to say, I really enjoy TAS. The thing that didnt catch on for me is the personal forcefields.

Didn't Paramount recently in the last couple of years decalre TAS as Canon? If i recall, its Paramount htat has final say whats Canon and whats not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i bought the series on DVD for $15 at walmart. I have to say, I really enjoy TAS. The thing that didnt catch on for me is the personal forcefields.

Didn't Paramount recently in the last couple of years decalre TAS as Canon? If i recall, its Paramount htat has final say whats Canon and whats not.

As far as I know, there was no official declaration -- for one thing its a little unclear if anyone is considered to have jurisdiction over the Trek franchise the way Berman or Roddenberry did anymore -- but the release of the series on DVD and the addition of TAS and TAS related facts to the database on Startrek.com was seen as a major endorsement.

The question itself was addressed on the DVD set in a presumably Okuda-written piece entitled "Animated Trek: Real or Not?", as well as special features on the set itself.

TAS is important because during the seventies it was the only new Trek there was. It established things like Kirk's middle name, the character of Robert April, and many other important additions. For me, the only really hard TAS fact to reconcile with established Trek is the USS Bonaventure debacle -- even before FC was released it was hard to swallow that the Bonaventure was the first warp ship because its obviously a big ass Starfleet ship of the same generation as the Enterprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, i forgot about the Bonadventure. That was unrealistic. There is also the problem i had with the giant BALLOON enterprise.

And of course "The Terratin Incident" -- it was some kind of law that every 70s cartoon had a shrinking episode.

But is it any more ridiculous than "One Little Ship" or whatever that DS9 episode was called?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, i forgot about the Bonadventure. That was unrealistic. There is also the problem i had with the giant BALLOON enterprise.

And of course "The Terratin Incident" -- it was some kind of law that every 70s cartoon had a shrinking episode.

But is it any more ridiculous than "One Little Ship" or whatever that DS9 episode was called?

Ah One Little Ship ... I couldn't have been the only one here giggling when a Runabout the size of a glob fly buzzed around a snarling Jem'Hadar before blasting it with it's miniaturised torpedoes, could I? ;)

Truth be told I'm fine with most of what I see in TAS, though I will admit I prefer Alan Dean Foster's novelisations of the episodes because he goes a bit more in depth than a 25 minute carton will allow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ This.

I've always wondered why 'One Little Ship' hasn't been criticised more for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DS9: One Little Ship may have been a bad idea (Fantastic Voyage in space I believe the crew referred to it as), but it was well executed. I think so, anyway.

Edited by GenesisDevice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if your measure is based on the individual execution of single episodes, then wouldn't it be logical for you to accept some TAS episodes, like "Yesteryear", and not others like "The Ambergris Element"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this