Star Trek Canon Discussion: The Animated Series

For all your discussion of canon policies, evidentiary standards, and other meta-debate issues.

Discussion is to remain cordial at all times.
Post Reply
User avatar
Mith
Starship Captain
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:17 am

Star Trek Canon Discussion: The Animated Series

Post by Mith » Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:39 pm

No doubt you are all aware that the Startrek.com website has changed itself around a bit. One thing is that they redid their official database.

Look here:

http://www.startrek.com/database_article_navigator

Under canon info, you can clearly see that TAS information has been included. Including episodes, characters, technologies, ships, aliens, and so forth. This is the official website and it has all of this listed under a category labelled as "canon info".

Perhaps I'm late to this particular party, but I guess that means that TAS is now canon. What do you guys think?

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Canon Discussion: The Animated Series

Post by 2046 » Mon Apr 02, 2012 4:36 am

1. This should be located in the rules of evidence forum.

2. The Trek website writers have seemingly been advocating for TAS canonicity since the old guard that ran the site were cast aside. Although the site itself making the claim is itself a bit of evidence for the claim, I for one would have much preferred some backing from actual production staff. However, everything we have from producers suggested TAS was never thought canon, though some TAS facts did graduate to canon status.

Put simply, right now there really isn't a single governing authority for Trek, so any recent statements representing a shift in the common point of view go, in my not-so-humble opinion, only as far as that product. So if JJ says DS9 is out, that only applies to his reboot universe. If the Star Trek Online guys say some crappy old comics are in, that only applies to their game universe. And so on.

It is not without consternation that I propose this point of view. But by the rule that ownership gives authority to dictate canonicity, the heavily fractured ownership of the Trek franchise means that the Trek universe is now equally fractured. CBS cannot rewrite canonicity regarding the Viacom JJ-Trek, for instance, and any disputes over the canon status of prior works are not logically solvable via past methods of rank and ownership.

Off the top of my head, I am not even able to recall which company and under which aegis (Viacom or CBS) the site is running under nowadays.

The site authors' suggestions, though interesting fodder for TAS-ophiles, are unlikely to have weight on or bear fruit in other works. And for me, even though there are some scenes I would absolutely adore having access to (the bridge auto-defense phasers and Spock digging a moat with a hand phaser come to mind), the films, TNG, and ENT era were produced without TAS much in mind. Introducing it retroactively muddies the waters both from a story and tech standpoint, over and above the prior explicit production staff denials, and so I must oppose it on that basis.

User avatar
Khas
Starship Captain
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation

Re: Star Trek Canon Discussion: The Animated Series

Post by Khas » Mon Apr 02, 2012 1:14 pm

Actually, if ENT had had a fifth season, they would have encountered the Kzinti, who, remember, were in an episode of TAS.

There are other TAS references thoughout ST.
A Caitian admiral appeared in Star Trek IV.

Sehlats, which appeared in Enterprise, were first introduced in TAS.

And I'm pretty sure there are other references spread throughout ST as well.

So, you can't really say that they didn't have TAS in mind.

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Star Trek Canon Discussion: The Animated Series

Post by Picard » Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:16 pm

Even there, we can't know whether only those facts would be considered canon, or entire TAS. Here - and - there references cannot be indicative of canonicity status of work as a whole - without direct comment, we don't know whether only those particular pieces of information were uplifted to the status of canon, or the work as a whole was.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Canon Discussion: The Animated Series

Post by 2046 » Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:11 pm

Khas wrote:So, you can't really say that they didn't have TAS in mind.
No, but I can say they didn't have it much in mind, which is what I said. There are even more references and nods, I am sure, but they were also explicit that TAS was not canon. Similarly, having Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens on the production staff of ENT undoubtedly resulted in some book nods or maybe even references (recall the incident where DS9 stepped on book series toes despite a promise not too), but that does not make the books canon.

Star Wars is also referenced in Trek ... that does not make SW become Trek canon. The notion that references, nods, homages, and/or the graduation of pieces of non-canon into canon fact somehow canonizes the entire body of non-canon work is foolish, especially when such an outcome is explicitly contradicted by the architects of the canon.

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Star Trek Canon Discussion: The Animated Series

Post by Picard » Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:48 am

Yet it's exactly type of excuse people use to make Star Wars EU canon...

User avatar
Mith
Starship Captain
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:17 am

Re: Star Trek Canon Discussion: The Animated Series

Post by Mith » Tue Apr 10, 2012 1:48 am

Picard wrote:Yet it's exactly type of excuse people use to make Star Wars EU canon...
Yes, and those people tend to be acting like retarded fanboys to get their way. Not that it really helps their argument in the end, but that's just how some fanboys are.

While I think that they might have boosted TAS to canon to boost DVD sales as a cheap ploy, they certainly never seriously considered TAS canon before now. They might have borrowed, but that's not the same thing.

@2046
1. This should be located in the rules of evidence forum.
Oops.
2. The Trek website writers have seemingly been advocating for TAS canonicity since the old guard that ran the site were cast aside. Although the site itself making the claim is itself a bit of evidence for the claim, I for one would have much preferred some backing from actual production staff. However, everything we have from producers suggested TAS was never thought canon, though some TAS facts did graduate to canon status.
The old guard? I'm a bit lost on that. You seem to be indicating that there's division in their ranks. Do you have any information on this? Because if it's just a few people trying to use the site to push something without any authority for their own agenda, I'll be very cross indeed.
Put simply, right now there really isn't a single governing authority for Trek, so any recent statements representing a shift in the common point of view go, in my not-so-humble opinion, only as far as that product. So if JJ says DS9 is out, that only applies to his reboot universe. If the Star Trek Online guys say some crappy old comics are in, that only applies to their game universe. And so on.
Well, JJ is supposed to stay in his alt universe, sans what he already did to Trek Prime during his genocide run against the Romulans. I don't really care what STO says. Their timeline is terrible and I find the authority for their canon less than acceptable. But I don't understand how that works into what the website says.
It is not without consternation that I propose this point of view. But by the rule that ownership gives authority to dictate canonicity, the heavily fractured ownership of the Trek franchise means that the Trek universe is now equally fractured. CBS cannot rewrite canonicity regarding the Viacom JJ-Trek, for instance, and any disputes over the canon status of prior works are not logically solvable via past methods of rank and ownership.

Off the top of my head, I am not even able to recall which company and under which aegis (Viacom or CBS) the site is running under nowadays.
I just checked wikipedia and it said this:
At Star Trek's creation, Norway Productions, Roddenberry's production company, shared ownership with Desilu and, after Gulf+Western acquired Desilu in 1967, with Paramount Pictures, the conglomerate's film studio. Paramount did not want to own the unsuccessful show; net profit was to be shared between Norway, Desilu/Paramount, Shatner, and NBC but Star Trek lost money, and the studio did not expect to syndicate it. In 1970 Paramount offered to sell all rights to Star Trek to Roddenberry, but he could not afford the $150,000 ($898,000 today) price.[76]:218,220

In 1989 Gulf+Western renamed itself as Paramount Communications, and in 1994 merged with Viacom.[76]:218 In 2005 Viacom divided into CBS Corporation, whose CBS Television Studios subsidiary retained the Star Trek brand, and Viacom, whose Paramount Pictures subsidiary retained the Star Trek film library and rights to make additional films, along with video distribution rights to the TV series on behalf of CBS.[77][76]:223 Both Viacom and CBS are controlled by National Amusements.[78]
So, Paramount Communications divided into the CBS Corporation and Viacom. The CBS Television Studios subsidiary retained the Star Trek brand, while the Paramount Pictures subsidiary retained the Star Trek film library and rights to make additional films, along with the video distribution rights to the TV series on behalf of CBS.

Fuck that's complicated.

But it seems as though they're both run by National Amusements.

Overall, it looks as though the actual brand belongs to CBS, but Paramount has the rights to video distribution and movie rights. So it looks like they both have authority over canon, since Viacom can make more movies, which adds to canon, but CBS controls the actual brand, so I would think that they'd be the authority on whether or not TAS is or is not canon.
The site authors' suggestions, though interesting fodder for TAS-ophiles, are unlikely to have weight on or bear fruit in other works. And for me, even though there are some scenes I would absolutely adore having access to (the bridge auto-defense phasers and Spock digging a moat with a hand phaser come to mind), the films, TNG, and ENT era were produced without TAS much in mind. Introducing it retroactively muddies the waters both from a story and tech standpoint, over and above the prior explicit production staff denials, and so I must oppose it on that basis.
To play devil's advocate, was it not true that at one point, there were semi-canon or fully canon Voyager novels? And Gene himself didn't really consider TOS canon at some point during TNG. I understand your point of how TAS was treated and therefore its stance is shaky on those grounds, but you also have to consider that this isn't the first time that Trek canon was altered. Gene's opinion on TOS and the Voyager's staff opinion on the Voyager books were both changed and later changed back.

And as far as story and tech standpoints--a great deal of things were changed from TOS to TNG era already, these really just bring in several more changes. Although it does make me scratch my head at them having a belt with a force field built in and later apparently dropping it for...nothing. Although it would explain how Worf was able to rig up his own belt shield generator in A Fistful of Datas. And the admiral from Paradise Lost did mention that they were stocking personal shields...so I guess it sort of works.

But you mentioned something about division. Perhaps that might change my attitude on this. Could you shed some more light on that?

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5835
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Star Trek Canon Discussion: The Animated Series

Post by Mike DiCenso » Thu Apr 12, 2012 5:33 am

2046 wrote:
Khas wrote:So, you can't really say that they didn't have TAS in mind.
No, but I can say they didn't have it much in mind, which is what I said. There are even more references and nods, I am sure, but they were also explicit that TAS was not canon. Similarly, having Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens on the production staff of ENT undoubtedly resulted in some book nods or maybe even references (recall the incident where DS9 stepped on book series toes despite a promise not too), but that does not make the books canon.

Star Wars is also referenced in Trek ... that does not make SW become Trek canon. The notion that references, nods, homages, and/or the graduation of pieces of non-canon into canon fact somehow canonizes the entire body of non-canon work is foolish, especially when such an outcome is explicitly contradicted by the architects of the canon.
ST:ENT did include a number of big TAS references, perhaps more than any of the prior post-TOS live-action series have to date. The Vulcan Trilogy of the 4th season takes place in the area called Vulcan's Forge, which is where Spock in "Yesteryear" attempted his Kahs-wan ritual. The Sehlat, the animal species which Spock (and later T'Pol) kept as pets doesn't count since it was first mentioned in TOS' "Journey to Babel", but the CGI depiction of the Sehlat is based strongly on the original TAS animation of Spock's pet I-Chaya. Even before that, ST:ENT"s "Catwalk" has a direct reference to the Kas-wan ritual (T'Pol undertook it) and to Lunaport. "Fusion" has reference to ShiKahr city from "Yesteryear", Spock's hometown.

So if ST:ENT and TAS are in seperate continuities from the main Trek timeline as some people assume, they may well be taking place in the same one. ;-)
-Mike

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5835
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Star Trek Canon Discussion: The Animated Series

Post by Mike DiCenso » Thu Apr 12, 2012 5:39 am

Khas wrote: Sehlats, which appeared in Enterprise, were first introduced in TAS.
No, not quite true. The sehlats were first mentioned in TOS' "Journey to Babel".
-Mike

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5835
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Star Trek Canon Discussion: The Animated Series

Post by Mike DiCenso » Fri Apr 13, 2012 4:16 pm

Oh yeah, thread moved to Rules of evidence where it belongs.
-Mike

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Canon Discussion: The Animated Series

Post by 2046 » Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:52 am

Mith wrote:The old guard? I'm a bit lost on that. You seem to be indicating that there's division in their ranks.
Not at all. Just that there was a group of folks running StarTrek.com back in the day, and at one point that group was summarily dismissed, basically. After that other folks ran it, and those other folks seem to be TAS-ophiles. Nothing more.
But it seems as though they're both run by National Amusements.
National Amusements (first I've heard of it!) seems to be an/the important shareholder (take a look at the voting shares-related stock split of Google for an idea of the value of voting shares), but I don't have the sense from that that National Amusements is involved in the day to day stuff, except insofar as the Redstones are.

Or Cyrus Redblock. Because I can't think of Sumner Redstone without that image in my head.

Anyway, here's my info from sometime back in the day: http://canonwars.com/STCanon.html#II-B

As I'd said: "But by the rule that ownership gives authority to dictate canonicity, the heavily fractured ownership of the Trek franchise means that the Trek universe is now equally fractured. CBS cannot rewrite canonicity regarding the Viacom JJ-Trek, for instance, and any disputes over the canon status of prior works are not logically solvable via past methods of rank and ownership."

If your thought is that CBS is the final arbiter, I don't know if I agree . . . I mean, it isn't like the JJ-verse pays even a theoretical license fee and thus becomes a licensee, right? I'd love if that were so, because I could just write off the JJ-verse as licensed EU.
To play devil's advocate, was it not true that at one point, there were semi-canon or fully canon Voyager novels?
They still are. No one of remotely adequate rank has decanonized or explicitly questioned them. However, Pocket Books folks took to ignoring them, and of course Voyager didn't always respect even its own prior episodes so whether things got ignored is not exactly firm evidence either way.

See: http://canonwars.com/STCanon.html#III-D-5

(Following that is also a discussion about the Trek website, albeit not referring to the personnel replacement I am recalling)
And Gene himself didn't really consider TOS canon at some point during TNG.
So we're told by Paula Block, but there's no official statement from people of significant rank to that effect. Here's what she said in 2005:

"Gene R. himself had a habit of decanonizing things. He didn't like the way the animated series turned out, so he proclaimed that it was NOT CANON. He also didn't like a lot of the movies. So he didn't much consider them canon either. And--okay, I'm really going to scare you with this one--after he got TNG going, he...well...he sort of decided that some of the Original Series wasn't canon either. I had a discussion with him once, where I cited a couple things that were very clearly canon in the Original Series, and he told me he didn't think that way anymore, and that he now thought of TNG as canon wherever there was conflict between the two. He admitted it was revisionist thinking, but so be it."

http://canonwars.com/STCanonquotes-trekbbs1.html#3

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Star Trek Canon Discussion: The Animated Series

Post by Picard » Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:57 am

So, TAS is not canon. What about TOS vs TNG?

Post Reply