Sign in to follow this  
Dillkid

Does The Animated Series count in the Star Trek canon?

Recommended Posts

No, because there are far too many inconsistencies with two versions of canon. Either the Phoenix was the first warp ship, or the Bonaventure was. Yet everyone seems to be quite happy to ignore conflicting little things like this. Besides, the series is actually terrible and oh yes it's a CARTOON. For me it's like categorizing everything Bugs Bunny does as genuine bunny behaviour because it was seen onscreen.

I don't believe it should be canon just because it is on DVD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because there are far too many inconsistencies with two versions of canon. Either the Phoenix was the first warp ship, or the Bonaventure was. Yet everyone seems to be quite happy to ignore conflicting little things like this. Besides, the series is actually terrible and oh yes it's a CARTOON. For me it's like categorizing everything Bugs Bunny does as genuine bunny behaviour because it was seen onscreen.

I don't believe it should be canon just because it is on DVD.

This.

I still maintain TPTB suddenly started claiming the series was canon/endorsing it because they wanted to sell more DVDs. ;)

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)

Um...what? Why would those three shows be non-canon? Roddenberry never said anything about those three shows like he did about Trek V or TAS...

As for the topic, I'm unsure. It doesn't seem like it's meant to be. Like others stated, it's like a fun t.v. show based on Trek for kiddies. I liken it to those old Jurassic Park toys? Where Alan Grant has a hand glider or Ian Malcolm has this bazooka. Clearly, neither had any of that in the movie. It's just to sell for the kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um...what? Why would those three shows be non-canon? Roddenberry never said anything about those three shows like he did about Trek V or TAS...

Erm, he was kind of dead before those shows were created, so how could he have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um...what? Why would those three shows be non-canon? Roddenberry never said anything about those three shows like he did about Trek V or TAS...

Erm, he was kind of dead before those shows were created, so how could he have?

All the more reason why I'm confused by The_Commodore's statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure I read someplace that it was the series to first mention what the T in James T Kirk stood for and having the Klingon Emblem for the first time and Robert April. To a point it's cannon but being animated and some of the episodes being what they are I guess not. Uh, er and nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, TAS was the first time we found out that Kirk's middle name was Tiberius. But by the same vein, Sulu's first name, 'Hikaru' was first used in a book, which is definitely non-canon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny enough, there is one character the fandom seems to like. I don't remember the character's name but it's a Caitian. I've even seen fan support to cannonize her and put her in the Star Trek sequel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny enough, there is one character the fandom seems to like. I don't remember the character's name but it's a Caitian. I've even seen fan support to cannonize her and put her in the Star Trek sequel.

M'ress, I think.

Though not canon, she appears quite a lot in New Frontier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always figured it was canon because while some of it is stupid some of it actually works. The same could be said of Voyager and no one's saying it's not canon, at least that I've heard. There's always the "if Roddenberry didn't touch it I don't watch it" crowd but, sorry guys, I'm gonna ignore you for the moment. I don't remember you ever commenting on Voyager anyway.

Yes, I would prefer that certain incidents were not canon. Like half the series.

But I would prefer that most of TNG's first season wasn't canon either and Roddenberry was all over that action. And TMP. And TATV, although I can think of at least three ways off the top of my head why that isn't or doesn't have to be canon, not including "it sucks" so we'll ignore that. And it was co-written by Rick Berman, the man Gene chose to replace him, which gives it a certain air of credulity and still no one wants to include it.

But my main reason for making TAS canon is that it gives us more time, and time is something we were robbed of in TOS. After everything, don't some of you wish TNG and DS9 and even Voyager and Enterprise lasted longer than they did? If we can squeeze another 20 episodes, even if they are half as long, scored stupidly, and animated badly, out of TOS, maybe we should just sit back and enjoy the moments where it works instead of debating whether or not we should get to have them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But my main reason for making TAS canon is that it gives us more time, and time is something we were robbed of in TOS. After everything, don't some of you wish TNG and DS9 and even Voyager and Enterprise lasted longer than they did? If we can squeeze another 20 episodes, even if they are half as long, scored stupidly, and animated badly, out of TOS, maybe we should just sit back and enjoy the moments where it works instead of debating whether or not we should get to have them.

I understand where you are coming from with this. I myself find it difficult to count it in "my own sense of canon". But it's great that it's there for those who don't mind mixing realism with animation, and for the fans that crave for more TOS adventures. The same can be said for novels, fan fiction, comics and even video games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always found ST 'canon' to be as malleable as reality was in The Nexus. Canon can be whatever I (as a fan) want it to be. If I choose to regard "Yesteryear" or "Time Trap" as canon? Then to me, they're canon. If I choose to 'forget' that Spock has a half brother named Sybok or that the Enterprise can reach the galactic center in about 2 hours (!?!), then that is canon to me.

Personally, I find the use of the word 'canon' to describe the machinations of a TV/movie franchise to be a tad ridiculous. It's a term better used to describe religious dogma or historic legal precedents, not a TV show. ST contradicts it's own rule book and chronology so many times (and we've always forgiven it) that there really is no absolute single timeline or chronology for the show, really. Did TAS 'happen' in ST lore? Well, why not? "These ARE the voyages of the starship Enterprise" as the opening narration plainly tells us. Did the Eugenics Wars happen in the 1990s? No. Will warp drive be invented in 2063? All the known (and theoretical) laws of physics would bet against it. So, in the end, does it really matter what elements of ST are 'real' or not? No. It's all subjective fantasy. My favorite movie is "2001: A Space Odyssey"; does that mean I booked a flight to Clavius moon base that year? No.

If I read a particular good ST book and choose to think that it 'happened' in the ST universe, then it did. Contradictory or not. Imagination should never be so hemmed in like that. I understand that having an accurate chronology of the show makes it more 'real' for us fans and thus easier to suspend our disbelief (and I certainly appreciate that), but at the end of the day ST is only as real as what we emotionally invest into it.

For me? The more successful episodes of TAS are canon, the less successful ones that I don't particularly like are not. That is my own personal 'nexus of Star Trek.' Just as I can't reconcile Sybok, the Space Hippies or Gorkon the friendly angel happening in the same universe where Admiral Kirk and Scotty took a nice long tour of a very real-looking starship Enterprise in an orbital drydock. Point is, it doesn't have to. Memory is based on reconstruction of events not literal recall (unless one is blessed with an eidentic memory); especially at my age. Some events are embellished above others, and some are best left forgotten.

Same goes for my memory of Star Trek... ;)

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, I will always go by the definitions from the official Star Trek website until 2006:

"As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the real action series and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, (video games,) the Animated Series and the various comic lines are not canon."

It did go on to talk about specific exceptions; Jeri Taylor's novels Mosaic and Pathways, and the TAS episode Yesteryear. However, in all these cases it seemed that stuff only became canon if it was later confirmed on screen (as with Enterprise's The Forge for example). In any case, I see no reason to allow specific exceptions, it just gets messy.

I do think that having an overall definition of canon is necessary for reference purposes, and it has nothing to do with how "good" things are. I personally hate Enterprise for example, but I can't disregard it as canon simply because I don't like it. Likewise, there are many novels, video games, fan productions and so on that are very good, but they still cannot be included in the canon. Without a definition of canon, everything becomes subjective and pointless.

I would not want to diminish anyone's enjoyment of TAS (or the novels, video games or whatever), but I don't think it can ever (officially) be considered canon. Just like how Peter Cushion can never be considered an official Dr. Who (for example).

Edited by Zef'No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, I will always go by the definitions from the official Star Trek website until 2006:

"As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the real action series and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, (video games,) the Animated Series and the various comic lines are not canon."

It did go on to talk about specific exceptions; Jeri Taylor's novels Mosaic and Pathways, and the TAS episode Yesteryear. However, in all these cases it seemed that stuff only became canon if it was later confirmed on screen (as with Enterprise's The Forge for example). In any case, I see no reason to allow specific exceptions, it just gets messy.

I do think that having an overall definition of canon is necessary for reference purposes, and it has nothing to do with how "good" things are. I personally hate Enterprise for example, but I can't disregard it as canon simply because I don't like it.

Sure you can! :laugh:

Star Trek fans turned their backs on TAS a long time ago. Living proof that 'canon' is only as canonical as we want it to be. Sulu's first name "Hikaru" name from a non-canon source (the TOS novel, "The Entropy Effect") and Kirk's middle name Tiberius came from TAS.

I tell you; canon is only so until popular memory or fandom decides that it isn't (StarTrek.com be damned, IMO). Did STV (a major TOS movie) not happen? So where's Sybok in ST09? Or why wasn't he ever mentioned before or since (and I won't even go into the Enterprise A's apparent 'superwarp drive' that made it to the galactic center in a couple hours).

Fans can let a website dictate what's official or they can treat 'canon' as I do; if you like it? It counts. If you don't, it can be just as easily forgotten (ala STV or TAS; and for the record, I liked TAS, but STV blows....) :huh2:

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally go with the 'official' explanation as well. I see TAS as more of a fantasy sequence rather than cannon. I enjoyed TAS though, there were some interesting ideas, some of which were later 'cannonized' like Spock's childhood on Vulcan. Life support belts which made their way into TAS to cut down on animating expenses aren't seen again however, despite being more advanced in theory than space suits. Ideas were developed that were far too costly to do live action at the time. There were some episodes that stood out like 'Yesteryear', but also episodes I didn't like such as 'The infinite Vulcan'.

Yes, ST5 sucked, and it's best to just think that it didn't exist, but it does and it's officially cannon. Future trek episodes wisely backed away from referencing it. It may be cannon, but when they are one-offs that are never referenced again you don't have to think about the inconsistencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Star Trek fans turned their backs on TAS a long time ago. Living proof that 'canon' is only as canonical as we want it to be.

No, fans don't get to decide what is and what is not canon. The definition I posted before has been widely accepted for years, and is followed by almost all the official reference books and so on.

Recently, the status of TAS has been questioned, but this is nothing more than a marketing gimmick to get people to buy the DVDs. You can't change things retroactively, it's too late. TAS was never canon and it never will be. Neither will the novels, video games etc.

Sulu's first name "Hikaru" name from a non-canon source (the TOS novel, "The Entropy Effect") and Kirk's middle name Tiberius came from TAS.

But they only became canon AFTER they were incorporated into a live-action production (The Undiscovered Country).

According to one Star Trek book for example, Uhura's first name was Upenda, and Spock's Vulcan name was Xtmprszntwlfd, but none of this is canon (even though it would have given Uhura a first name decades before the 2009 film did).

Did STV (a major TOS movie) not happen? So where's Sybok in ST09? Or why wasn't he ever mentioned before or since (and I won't even go into the Enterprise A's apparent 'superwarp drive' that made it to the galactic center in a couple hours).

Like it or not, ST:V is canon.

they can treat 'canon' as I do; if you like it? It counts. If you don't, it can be just as easily forgotten

You have every right to your own opinions, but that's all this is. This is NOT the same thing as declaring what is and is not canon, a decision which affects everyone. And no one is saying that all non-canon stuff is bad and all canon-stuff is good, that's got nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe in, nor do I accept, that ANY fictional event is 'canon.' It's a fictional universe. I've always felt ST fans (myself included sometimes) have too much of a 'holy relic' approach as to what is or isn't 'proper' ST ('canon' never stopped Sherlock Holmes... or James Bond, for that matter; a good story is a good story, regardless if it's 'official' or not). My point is, I can declare (for myself) what I think is or isn't canon; whether anyone else chooses to do so is their own prerogative... ;):P

And like it or not, canon is still malleable, whether one chooses to accept that fact or not. ST 'history' changes all the time. IMO, there are as many 'canon benders' in TOS and TNG as there are in TAS; so why is one acceptable and the other is not?

Again; canon is malleable and NOTHING of the (fictional) ST universe is etched in stone.

It's probably one of the things that drew me into ST09. It had the b@lls to cut the cord with canon after Captain Kirk's birth in 2233. Now we have all new adventures with our familiar (yet slightly different) crew. The best of both worlds (excuse the pun).... :thumbup:

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Star Trek cannon can be bended by future canonical episodes or movies, usually by using excuses like time travel. Until it does, canon is canon, and as a fan of the franchise I accept their official explanation of what constitutes canon. ST:V, even though it was almost universally panned by fans, is officially considered canon. The approach to the inconsistencies like reaching the galactic centre or Spock's never before or again mention half brother are never clarified in later work, because it's not relevant to future works. They just dismiss it with 'the TOS crew did amazing things' and move on. Yes, it's a fictional universe, but it's one that is expected to abide by a certain set of guidelines based on canonical sources. This isn't the only franchise to do this or have 'is it canon?' debates, there was discussion over whether the Clone Wars animated series was canonical to the Star Wars franchise. TOS broke it's own canon because it didn't take itself seriously as a franchise, and early TNG did (less frequently than TOS) as well because of bad writing, but when they do so generally the fans hold their feet to the fire. The fans generally expect official Trek to operate within canon.

Yes, ST09 broke with it, but remember that Prime Spock arrived before Kirk's birth, so anything that happens after Spock's arrival is part of an alternate timeline and doesn't change the already seen events of the prime universe. That's why ST09 breaks cannon but it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
('canon' never stopped Sherlock Holmes... or James Bond, for that matter; a good story is a good story, regardless if it's 'official' or not).

Indeed. You can easily have a good story that isn't canon (just as you can have bad stories which are canon). - Quality has nothing to do with it.

IMO, there are as many 'canon benders' in TOS and TNG as there are in TAS; so why is one acceptable and the other is not?

There may be many inconsistencies, that doesn't (in itself) make it non-canon.

It's probably one of the things that drew me into ST09. It had the b@lls to cut the cord with canon after Captain Kirk's birth in 2233.

And ST:09 is canon (unfortunately). It may be in a different universe, but it is still canon.

In short, canonicity only refers to that which meets the definition I listed earlier. Quality, consistency or alternate universes don't make any difference.

You need some objective definition of canon; you can't have fans arbitrarily and subjectively deciding which episodes are canon and which are not, it would be chaos!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fandom itself is chaos. :laugh:

Besides, no one can dictate what is 'official' or not.

All expressions of ST have their relative merit regardless of whether they are officially sanctioned by Paramount or not.

ST fans need to tear up the rule books sometime.... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fandom itself is chaos. :laugh:

Besides, no one can dictate what is 'official' or not.

All expressions of ST have their relative merit regardless of whether they are officially sanctioned by Paramount or not.

ST fans need to tear up the rule books sometime.... ;)

I'd agree with that. I essentially selectively decanonize things as I watch them and they don't gel with my vision of things (like Nemesis is canon but theres stuff in there that I'd just as soon pretend some things in there didn't happen).

I consider TAS to essentially be a 4th season of TOS (and I sort of feel as if the movies are like a final season for the original crew). So I think it's as canon as anything else. It doesn't do anything so out there and goofy that I need it to be ousted. Canon debates always seem odd to me, if it works for you it can be canon, and if it doesn't pretend it didn't happen. I liked it so it's canon!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider TAS to essentially be a 4th season of TOS (and I sort of feel as if the movies are like a final season for the original crew). So I think it's as canon as anything else. It doesn't do anything so out there and goofy that I need it to be ousted. Canon debates always seem odd to me, if it works for you it can be canon, and if it doesn't pretend it didn't happen. I liked it so it's canon!

With simply how the stories were done in those days, I would consider it canon. A story could be utterly ridiculous and yet as long as it followed the "reset button" it was technically a Star Trek story. So, yeah, I'd consider it canon. Not that I'd ever have it in my house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fandom itself is chaos. :laugh:

Besides, no one can dictate what is 'official' or not.

All expressions of ST have their relative merit regardless of whether they are officially sanctioned by Paramount or not.

ST fans need to tear up the rule books sometime.... ;)

I'd agree with that. I essentially selectively decanonize things as I watch them and they don't gel with my vision of things (like Nemesis is canon but theres stuff in there that I'd just as soon pretend some things in there didn't happen).

I consider TAS to essentially be a 4th season of TOS (and I sort of feel as if the movies are like a final season for the original crew). So I think it's as canon as anything else. It doesn't do anything so out there and goofy that I need it to be ousted. Canon debates always seem odd to me, if it works for you it can be canon, and if it doesn't pretend it didn't happen. I liked it so it's canon!

Way+to+Eden+1.jpg "Yay brother! We reach...."

For me? "Canon" is whatever the hell I want it to be. I can ignore ST5 and most of VGR, and I can enjoy TAS (which I too, consider a '4th season' of ST; just as I consider the Phase 2 fan films to be a fifth season). I enjoy them, therefore (to me) they are. :P

I think ST fans (all of us) just need to loosen up a bit.... ST 'history' is fictional; and hardly written in stone.

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


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