I was simply wondering why the Star Trek Animated Series is generally regarded as non-canon? Admittedly, I have seen very little of it, and as such, I certainly have no position on whether it should or should not be considered canon.
Is it because the stories contradict other events in Star Trek? Is it simply because it is a cartoon? I have read that Roddenberry supposedly regretted certain aspects of TAS, but I have no idea what those aspects are.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Giant Spock clones. The Enterprise carrying around a giant blow-up Enterprise-shaped balloon. And other assorted moments of pain.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Much like TOS itself was a moment of pain, really. B)
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I think giant me-shaped balloons would be cool. I could set them loose in my town and frighten the humble villagers into serving me without question.
Maybe then, the chick that works at Roadsters on Friday night would give me a second look...
Clones of me on the other hand would be difficult to manage. I, along with most other people, can barely stand one of myself.
Sorry, what were we talking about?
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
Was the ballon-Ent's really from TAS? I thought that was original to the How Much for Just the Planet novel.
Not that it matters I suppose.
To answer the question - the powers thought the production values and writing was bad so they'd just as soon forget it. Others disagree.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Toadkiller: Was the ballon-Ent's really from TAS? I thought that was original to the How Much for Just the Planet novel.
Not that it matters I suppose.
To answer the question - the powers thought the production values and writing was bad so they'd just as soon forget it. Others disagree.
Look at who the target audience was when TAS was made, too. That was a factor as well really. Mature story telling in animation didn't start to occur until Space Battleship Yamato came to the states as Star Blazers (a stretch, i know but it was hella better than Super Friends )... Though im told they actually aired Kimba and Astroboy in the late 60's and early 70's in the states as well. I wasn't a active TV viewer until the late 70's from what i recall Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
I have all of the episodes on DVD-R, haven't watched them all yet, but I have them.
First off, TAS comprises of like 1�% of all 700+ hours of Star Trek on video. That number is so incredibly insiginificant that it really shouldn't matter if it is canon or not. Nevertheless, I like to think of it as canon just for the shock value, I suppose.
It is, afterall "Star Trek", it is on TV, and it is the real actors playing thier previously established characters, so it seems in that aspect it is really no different than the core of what makes TOS, TNG, DS9, etc canon.
On the flip side you have the fact that it is aimed at kids and it's a cartoon, other than that and some of the outrageous stories/visuals the pros seem to outweigh the cons for me.
Thinking back to some of the outrageous/far-fetched aspects of TOS in say "The Changeling", "Spocks Brain", "Catspaw", "ST-V" off the top of my head, TAS could have done better, but it also produced enough interesting stories or continuation of stories to catch the (so called) canon eye of Futurama Guy.
What comes to mind are say: "Yesteryear", "More Troubles, More Tribbles", "Time Trap", "Slaver Weapon", "One of Our Planets is Missing", "The Counter-Clock Incident", and to a lesser degree "Mudd's Passion" and "The Pirates of Orion" all fill in holes or add aspects to previously established characters/aliens that are almost too fun to ignore, kind of like "Where No Fan Has Gone Before".
Anyway, to each his own, but that is my take on the subject.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
There is essentially one reason and one reason alone why the animated Star Trek (which isn't, in truth, a separate series but merely the a continuation of the original live action version) has been left out in studio policy. It has to do with the fact that Gene Roddenberry had a falling out with Dorothy Fontana (who did a huge amount of work on the animated episodes, writing and producing) during the early run of TNG, and declared it invalid to "get back" at her.
That of course is probably simplified a lot, and makes him sound very childish, but let's not forget that he had already done the same thing to Franz Joseph by deliberately writing the "Rules of Starship Design" to exclude his Star Fleet Technical Manual designs.
Anyway, Richard Arnold (Roddenberry's personal archivist/lapdog at the time) began replying to fan inquiries that the cartoon was non-canon, at some point Rick Berman and Mike Okuda (both very tied to Roddenberry) latched on to it as well, and the rest is history.
But it really isn't so clear-cut. Numerous episodes from later series (including TNG, DS9, VGR, and ENT) have made references to animated episodes, suggesting that they did in fact "happen." And given that, I think the whole "TAS is non-canon" spiel is really only played lip service to by the studio, in their public forums such as startrek.com. I'd wager it's safe to say that, behind the scenes, (especially with writers/producers Mike Sussman and Phyllis Strong working on ENT) the animated Star Trek is not being forgotten.
As to the quality of the show, it's about equal to the live action seasons of TOS, both at it's best and at it's worst. Yes, the animation is quite dated, but so what? The set and costume design on TOS is equally dated, and that doesn't stop one from enjoying those episodes, does it? The stories are, for the most part compelling, the characters are developed, and it has all the "feel" of TOS, just as a cartoon.
-MMoM Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Giant cloned Spocks is far lamer than someone stealing Spock's brain.
While both stories are shit, the live action shit beats the animated shit so TAS should (like TOS) be viewed as your own personal "canon" on a per-episode basis.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
The "giant Spock" was pretty silly, but overall I don't think "The Infinite Vulcan" was a bad episode, per se. Cool Eugenics Wars references and those Phylosians (Trek's first [only?] use of a truly sentient plant species) were pretty cool IMHO.
Yes, there are better episodes, but there are also worse ones.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Trek's first [only?] use of a truly sentient plant species
I seem to recall that ensign Vilix'pran had a tendency to bud, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's a plant, I suppose.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Giant cloned Spocks is far lamer than someone stealing Spock's brain.
I was thinking more along the lines of him as a remote control Spock, very similar to the later used remote control Keevan.
Also, in contrast to the giant cloned Spock...lets not forget the 6-inch runabout flying within the bowels of the Defiant, much less the crew romping around various "enlarged parts" all Honey, I Shrunk the Kids-style!?!?
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Giant Enterprise Shaped BALLOON? Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
My, you really are quite young. Though really you are an adult being 18.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I think producing large clones is more likely than removing and putting back someone's brain. Lots of animals have been cloned, and larger than normal size (admittedly not 10x larger) is a common problem. But giant inflatable Enterprises ( http://www.startrekanimated.com/tas_ep_joker.html ) and giant tribbles ( http://www.startrekanimated.com/tas_ep_tribbles.html ) are really pushing the silliness envelope.
BTW. I had never heard the word "jihad" until I watched TAS during its first run. Also I hadn't heard of genetically engineered creatures before watching "More Tribbles."
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I cant agree (at least not when dealing with anything bigger than 10-20% above the original). The larger a human is the more strain there is on the person's organs (see refrences to guys like Andre the Giant). Making a really large (like 20 foot tall)version of someone would require some serious modifications to both skeletal and organ structures (including the brain and lungs wich would need to be able to refine far more oxygen than at their normal size.).
By TOS's era, it's not unthinkable that there could be temporary brain removal to repair/ regenerate damaged tissue without having to enter the shull from several angles. So a really advanced race could rip-odd Spock's brain.
But it's still a stupid story, really.
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
Actually, brain transplants have already been performed with Rhesus Monkeys as far back as the 70's and the monkey's brain survived in a new body for 8 days and was responsive to stimuli. It followed the scientists around the room with it's eyes for instance.
Head transplants onto other bodies have been done with numerous animals and many of those survived with two fully active brains / heads. They've also transplanted a head onto another headless monkey and had it survive.
Brain and head transplants with Humans aren't as far out a concept as you would think. In many ways the arguements against are more ethical then technological.
I think TAS has enough useful elements in it that it should be given semi-canon status, ie. you can pick and choose what you want to accept from it and what to reject completely. Pink K'zinti costumes come to mind as something to reject.
Posted by deadcujo (Member # 13) on :
Too bad we can't give any of these poor animals any control whatsoever over the bodies they've been attached to. Now that would be awesome.
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
So far they have been unsuccessful in getting the body to be controlled by the brain. If they performed it on a Human basically they would be quadrapalegics and would need respirators to live. This is mainly because of difficulties reconnecting the spinal cord rather then reconnecting the vascular system.
Here's an article that discusses many of the details about brain and head transplants.
There's also been implanting of brain cells from quails into chicken embryos that result in chickens that behave like quails. Pretty bizarre stuff but it has a lot of potential for treating brain disorders when they are able to do this in Humans.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by deadcujo: Too bad we can't give any of these poor animals any control whatsoever over the bodies they've been attached to. Now that would be awesome.
It would be way cooler if WE could control the headless monkey's body via remote control!
It'd put Playstation right out of business!
...then we could mount a circular saw onto a racoon's torso.....ohhhhh...that'd be sooo much fun. Way better than just watching the animal run around headless untill it expires.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Shutting people up via remote control, now THAT would be REALLY cool.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
They make such devices in a number of calibers....
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Yeah, but that requires line-of-sight.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: Also, in contrast to the giant cloned Spock...lets not forget the 6-inch runabout flying within the bowels of the Defiant, much less the crew romping around various "enlarged parts" all Honey, I Shrunk the Kids-style!?!?
There was, at least, some notion paid to science in that episode. The crew couldn't leave the runabout without suffocating, for instance.
True, it was silly. But it was suppossed to be silly. Whereas lots of TAS episodes are silly while attempting to be deadly serious.
quote:Originally posted by Bond, James Bond: I think TAS has enough useful elements in it that it should be given semi-canon status, ie. you can pick and choose what you want to accept from it and what to reject completely.
Not to go into this again, but it doesn't actually matter whether you think it should be canon, semi-canon, or sorta-maybe-a-bit-canon-if-we-ignore-anything-that-Walter-Koenig-wrote. It is officially non-canon according to Paramount. Therefore, it is (duh) non canon. Writers may throw in bits from those episodes, as they might throw in bits from the novels. Doesn't make them canon. It makes the bits mentioned canon.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:Originally posted by Bond, James Bond: I think TAS has enough useful elements in it that it should be given semi-canon status, ie. you can pick and choose what you want to accept from it and what to reject completely.
Not to go into this again, but it doesn't actually matter whether you think it should be canon, semi-canon, or sorta-maybe-a-bit-canon-if-we-ignore-anything-that-Walter-Koenig-wrote. It is officially non-canon according to Paramount. Therefore, it is (duh) non canon. Writers may throw in bits from those episodes, as they might throw in bits from the novels. Doesn't make them canon. It makes the bits mentioned canon.
Except in cases where it was referred to in that latter series....
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
Which is what he was referring to...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Manticore gets the "actually read the post" prize!
Whereas Futurama Guy gets not only the "silly fool who hasn't read the post" booby prize, but the "pointlessly quoting the post directly above in it's entirety when you are just replying to the last line of said post" prize of extreme stupidity.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I suppose we could think of it as actual events during the five year mission as told to a small child with bits of silliness thrown in. They technically happened... it's just that Scotty was drunk off his butt when he told his grandkids the stories.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ot it's Scotty's recollection just after slamming his head into an obvious, low hanging pipe in his own ship. he damage to his brain was so severe that McCoy had to place the hangar deck from a model Klingon battlecruiser onto his forehead to heal him.
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:Originally posted by Bond, James Bond: I think TAS has enough useful elements in it that it should be given semi-canon status, ie. you can pick and choose what you want to accept from it and what to reject completely.
Not to go into this again, but it doesn't actually matter whether you think it should be canon, semi-canon, or sorta-maybe-a-bit-canon-if-we-ignore-anything-that-Walter-Koenig-wrote. It is officially non-canon according to Paramount. Therefore, it is (duh) non canon. Writers may throw in bits from those episodes, as they might throw in bits from the novels. Doesn't make them canon. It makes the bits mentioned canon. [/QB]
I'm well aware of the non-canon status of TAS at Paramount. I was offering my opinion. Or are those not allowed either?
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Manticore gets the "actually read the post" prize!
Whereas Futurama Guy gets not only the "silly fool who hasn't read the post" booby prize, but the "pointlessly quoting the post directly above in it's entirety when you are just replying to the last line of said post" prize of extreme stupidity.
Yes, thank you PsyLiam, and no shit newbie-whatever-your-name-is.
However, I was pointing out that it was the very statement in your contradiction --
"Therefore, it is (duh) non canon."
and
"It makes the bits mentioned canon."
-- which obviously it cannot be both, and simply that the latter is all it really should take to make TAS canon. Now granted it is really late and I seem to be a one man army, none the less I would like to think the following has some merit:
If TAS was intended to be not canon, then it should treated as such and be left exactly at that: ignored and forgotten.
However, when some of TAS, no matter the amount, becomes written into a subsequent show/series, therefore acknowledging it -- those TAS elements are now considered canon, no? If those elements are suddenly recognized and considered "fair play" or valid, then might not it all as well be considered valid? I can think of a number of instances where this logic plays into my everyday field of work/study, however, not in the context of this argument. Regardless if TAS is taboo canon or non-canon, it has been acknowledged, it is therefore fact and should be accepted as such, or not at all, but not both.
Afterall, its creation was approved in the first place by Gene, no? Somehow I don't think there was any part to its approval that included, "we'll do it, but it doesn't count".
TAS only became noncanon when it was nixed out by Genes amended little "Rule of Spite", where since enough undermining has occurred to somewhat rescind that "rule" over the authenticity of the series.
It was initially designed to follow what was already begun in TOS, and should have been left at that, corny or not, because it has since been subsequently validated in other stories making it too easy not to ignore.
Only if Gene wasn't such an ornary bastard.... Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
If those elements are suddenly recognized and considered "fair play" or valid, then might not it all as well be considered valid?
No. That'd be like saying that just because we're rather sure from external sources that a controversial rabbi named Yeshua lived in Palestine in the early first century, we thus have confirmed the validity of every single detail of the life of Christ as recorded in the gospels. It doesn't work that way.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bond, James Bond: Actually, brain transplants have already been performed with Rhesus Monkeys as far back as the 70's and the monkey's brain survived in a new body for 8 days and was responsive to stimuli. It followed the scientists around the room with it's eyes for instance.
Head transplants onto other bodies have been done with numerous animals and many of those survived with two fully active brains / heads. They've also transplanted a head onto another headless monkey and had it survive.
They filmed the operation as well; we got to watch the video in RE once. Quite funny actually.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bond, James Bond: I'm well aware of the non-canon status of TAS at Paramount. I was offering my opinion. Or are those not allowed either?
You can't offer an opinion over what is "canon" or not, in the same way that I cannot offer an opinion over what elements water is made up of. Canon is strictly defined. It is not open to opinion.
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: Yes, thank you PsyLiam, and no shit newbie-whatever-your-name-is.
However, I was pointing out that it was the very statement in your contradiction --
"Therefore, it is (duh) non canon."
and
"It makes the bits mentioned canon."
-- which obviously it cannot be both, and simply that the latter is all it really should take to make TAS canon.
It isn't a contradiction. You are arguing is akin to saying that because some bits in the Titanic movie were true, everything shown during the course of the film actually happened.
Omega already argued why you are wrong, but to expand upon that: There have been references in Trek to Star Wars (Alderaan on status charts), Bukaroo Banzai (Excelsior's motto), and Back To The Future ("Flux Capacitor" mentioned, gravestone showing McFly). By your logic, all those things are now canon in the Star Wars universe.
To repeat: The bits from TAS that have been mentioned are now canon, but not in a "they happened the way they did in TAS" sort of way. They are only canon in the details that have been directly said out loud on filmed Trek. All the other bits are not canon unless and until they are mentioned.
Also, -100 points for pointless bashing of new posters.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
To put it in a specific example, there really is something called "ShirKahr" in the Trek universe, but that doesn't mean that Spock went back and changed his childhood through the Guardian of Forever.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: If those elements are suddenly recognized and considered "fair play" or valid, then might not it all as well be considered valid?
No. That'd be like saying that just because we're rather sure from external sources that a controversial rabbi named Yeshua lived in Palestine in the early first century, we thus have confirmed the validity of every single detail of the life of Christ as recorded in the gospels. It doesn't work that way.
Man. Leave it to you to make this a Jesus thing.
Am I the only Flarite that now considers the whole "canon" debate a Mobius Strip?
If we can just send a message to ourselves in the next loop, we could break free and some long-lost Flarite would pop up after being trapped in a circular conversation for years....
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Leave it to you to make this a Jesus thing.
Hey, we are discussing canon after all. Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: There have been references in Trek to [snip] Back To The Future ("Flux Capacitor" mentioned, gravestone showing McFly).
Okay, I know of the Star Wars and Buckaroo Banzai references, but I'm unfamiliar with these. Someone care to enlighten me?
B.J.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Me and the Nephilim take a dim view on such matters.
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:Originally posted by Bond, James Bond: I'm well aware of the non-canon status of TAS at Paramount. I was offering my opinion. Or are those not allowed either?
You can't offer an opinion over what is "canon" or not, in the same way that I cannot offer an opinion over what elements water is made up of. Canon is strictly defined. It is not open to opinion.
Paramount can never alter the conditions of what is and is not canon? I seem to remember a couple of Jeri Taylor novels ("Pathways" and "Mosaic") that were considered canon (at least until they were partially contradicted by later Voyager episodes).
My point was that Paramount can set guidleines as to what information from TAS is canon or not, and not leave it up to individual writers to include what aspects of it they would like to see. It doesn't always have to appear onscreen in a live action series or movie to be considered canon nor does everything seen onscreen become canon automatically because it can be declared non-canon by the Executive Producer.
Paramount and the Executive Producer are the final authorities on what is canon or not. I was suggesting they should alter the rules to allow aspects of TAS that they deem acceptable.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Right, he's not saying how things are, but rather how they ought to be.
And he makes a good point as to the fact that Paramount's definition of the Canon has changed over time, and even now cannot be said to be totally static. And while they're not entirely likely to take suggestions from fans on what they should in/exclude, it certainly doesn't hurt to voice an opinion.
The official website had a poll out a short while back asking whether fans would like to see the animated seasons on DVD. If the response were predominantly positive, and they were released on DVD, I wouldn't be surprised to see this "noncanonical" bullshit suddenly flutter right out the window...
-MMoM Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: I wouldn't be surprised to see this "noncanonical" bullshit suddenly flutter right out the window...
-MMoM
...along with any storytelling credibility Trek might still have.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Uh...like I've said, it's no better or worse than a great portion of TOS. If you don't like TOS, you probably don't care for it. But otherwise, you shouldn't find it any less "credible."
Jason, have you actually watched most of it, or is "The Infinite Vulcan" all you've seen? What about "Beyond The Farthest Star," "Yesteryear," "The Survivor," "The Ambergris Element," "The Time Trap," "The Jihad," "Bem," "Albatross"...?
Any one of those are easily better than "The Alternative Factor," "Return of the Archons," and "That Which Survives" (TOS) put together.
Besides, quality does not determine canonicity. Even "Threshold" (VGR), some piece-of-shit TNG episodes which I can't even recall the names of, and Nemesis are canonical. Why should the cartoon be treated differently?
-MMoM Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
It also had the first holodeck (and the first holodeck malfunction ), the first use of the more reliable dual turbolifts on the bridge instead of the one of TOS, personal forcefields, an actual non-humanoid alien on the bridge crew, improved equipment at some bridge stations, and an aquashuttle.
It would add to the technical sophistication of the TOS era. Not a huge leap, but enough to not make it look SO primitive in comparison to Enterprise.
Plus it fills in a lot of historical information about Spock, Captain Robert April, etc.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Well, personally, I'd like to dismiss the personal forcefields as a Starfleet field-test of new technology, instead of something that was in widespread use.
And I agree. TAS is no more consistent than TOS, or more ridiculous than episodes like "One Little Ship" or "Threshold". Although to be fair, "The Magicks of Megas-Tu" and "The Infinite Vulcan" were a bit dodgy. But continuity was really only disturbed by introduction of Niven's universe, and the frequent "first X" claims (Bonaventure, April's mission).
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Am I the only Flarite that now considers the whole "canon" debate a Mobius Strip?
If we can just send a message to ourselves in the next loop, we could break free and some long-lost Flarite would pop up after being trapped in a circular conversation for years....
333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by B.J.:
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: There have been references in Trek to [snip] Back To The Future ("Flux Capacitor" mentioned, gravestone showing McFly).
Okay, I know of the Star Wars and Buckaroo Banzai references, but I'm unfamiliar with these. Someone care to enlighten me?
B.J.
I can't remember what episode "Flux Capacitor" was mentioned in, but the McFly tombstone shows up in Sub Rosa.
quote:Originally posted by Bond, James Bond: Paramount can never alter the conditions of what is and is not canon? I seem to remember a couple of Jeri Taylor novels ("Pathways" and "Mosaic") that were considered canon (at least until they were partially contradicted by later Voyager episodes).
Y'know, I'm not convinced that they did change their mind. I don't think that "Pathways" and "Mosaic" were ever given proper "canon" status. It was more a case of Jeri Taylor saying "I think this is Janeway's backstory. I am executive producer. I will make it so that no episodes contradict these, and I will drop in bits from these novels in episodes. I rule". And in the same way, when she left Paramount didn't officially declare them "non canon". Rather, the person who was making sure that they were adhered to left, and no-one else cared about following them.
And, personally, I can't see Paramount changing it's mind on TAS, because there is no reason for it to do so. Making TAS canon will not make them money. It will not affect anything. And I don't think they care. The modern definition of "canon" was pretty much created with the first chronology, and it's stayed the same ever since. Why would they change it now, just because some people though that Arex actually had a personality?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Jason, have you actually watched most of it, or is "The Infinite Vulcan" all you've seen? What about "Beyond The Farthest Star," "Yesteryear," "The Survivor," "The Ambergris Element," "The Time Trap," "The Jihad," "Bem," "Albatross"...? -MMoM
Truthfully, it seems as if TAS was made in the "campiness era" of not offending anyone via comics or cartoons. I've only seen about half of the episode with the giant Spock (because it really wasnt worth watching the whole thing and the episode with the Kzin (another terrible episode, frankly).
I wouldnt mind watching "Yesteryear" or "Beyond the Farthest star" (because the ship design is cool) but as far as making the whole series canon, I'd say it's not worthwhile: There's enough to try to ignore in TOS and Voyager already. After readinf the episode reviews at EAS, the series as a whole doesnt seem worth buying and no one airs it (kinda strange in itself).
The tech bits (like O'Brien mentioning an unmanned cargo ship) that are mentioned onscreen can be safely considered canon (as they dont require the inclusion of the actual stories of TAS)
I'm a big fan of non-human crewmembers but a talking cat is hardly creative. The orange male crewman with the extra appendeges was cool though....and not too disimilar to the Species 8472 design.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: I can't remember what episode "Flux Capacitor" was mentioned in, but the McFly tombstone shows up in Sub Rosa.
And now I know why I didn't remember that one. Ugh.
B.J.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
If we can just send a message to ourselves in the next loop, we could break free and some long-lost Flarite would pop up after being trapped in a circular conversation for years....
Didn't this already happen and that's why Baloo is back??
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Flux Capacitor is mentioned in What You Leave Behind. Another quick note-Yeshua ben Joseph, or Yeshua bar Joseph, was not a rabbi. He was a teacher. The association we apply to Rabbi in the Jewish faith arose after the fall of Jerusalem in ~70 CE, and would be alien to the Christian Messiah.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I remember it being mentioned... but what was the context? I can hear it in my head, but I can't remember what they were talking about. IIRC, Data is the one who said it...
And I'm pretty sure Rabbi means "teacher".
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Master, actually. The original Hebrew word does, anyway.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
Wow - we have hebrew lessons here and Latin in D, A, & C. We've went and gone upscale!
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
Wow - we have hebrew lessons here and Latin in D, A, & C. We've went and gone upscale!
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Prelude to a double-post....
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: I remember it being mentioned... but what was the context? I can hear it in my head, but I can't remember what they were talking about. IIRC, Data is the one who said it...
And I'm pretty sure Rabbi means "teacher".
O'Brien said it in "What You Leave Behind" like newark said.
As follows
quote: O'BRIEN I've been offered a position at Starfleet Academy. Professor of Engineering.
BASHIR (taken aback) I see.
O'BRIEN Somebody has to teach you officers the difference between a warp matrix flux capacitor and a self-sealing stembolt.
BASHIR I suppose so...
Also, rabbi is Hebrew for "my master". But the term means both "master" and "teacher".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Jesus Fuck. Here we find ourselves yet again...back in biblical refrence debate.
Posted by Commander Dan (Member # 558) on :
Wow. I return to find 4 pages of posts. Definitely some interesting reading here�
I am curious, however: do any events in TAS (as ridiculous as they may or may not be) conflict with the continuity of events in other Trek?
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
Yes, some of it does. TAS declares the rather TOS-era looking USS Bonaventure the first warp powered starship which is contradicted by both TOS and "First Contact" then later Captain Robert April's (first Captain of the Enterprise) wife Sarah April says she was the first doctor on a warp powered starship which not only contradicts the Bonaventure reference - because she would have been dead if she served on that ship - but also implies the NCC-1701 to be the first starship equipped with warp drive which we know to be untrue from TOS, "First Contact", Enterprise, and numerous other sources.
So, it does have it's share of mistakes, but no more then TOS or any of the other series do.
quote:Originally Posted By Jason Abaddon
I'm a big fan of non-human crewmembers but a talking cat is hardly creative. The orange male crewman with the extra appendeges was cool though....and not too disimilar to the Species 8472 design.
No, the talking cat isn't great but Lt. Arex, the "orange guy" you refer to, was pretty cool. I swear they based E.T.'s face off of him.
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:Originally posted by Bond, James Bond: Paramount can never alter the conditions of what is and is not canon? I seem to remember a couple of Jeri Taylor novels ("Pathways" and "Mosaic") that were considered canon (at least until they were partially contradicted by later Voyager episodes).
Y'know, I'm not convinced that they did change their mind. I don't think that "Pathways" and "Mosaic" were ever given proper "canon" status. It was more a case of Jeri Taylor saying "I think this is Janeway's backstory. I am executive producer. I will make it so that no episodes contradict these, and I will drop in bits from these novels in episodes. I rule". And in the same way, when she left Paramount didn't officially declare them "non canon". Rather, the person who was making sure that they were adhered to left, and no-one else cared about following them.[/QB]
I already said Paramount or the Executive Producer are the final word on what is canon. So if the Executive Producer of a future Trek show wants to declare parts of TAS canon they can do so.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You know...a casual search on Flare found 178 matches for "canon" in the Trek threads.
Done to death.
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
Well, it was the premise of the topic so I don't see how you could discuss it without mentioning the "C" word. Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bond, James Bond: Yes, some of it does. TAS declares the rather TOS-era looking USS Bonaventure the first warp powered starship which is contradicted by both TOS and "First Contact" then later Captain Robert April's (first Captain of the Enterprise) wife Sarah April says she was the first doctor on a warp powered starship which not only contradicts the Bonaventure reference - because she would have been dead if she served on that ship - but also implies the NCC-1701 to be the first starship equipped with warp drive which we know to be untrue from TOS, "First Contact", Enterprise, and numerous other sources.
None of those is irreconcilable. One would have to think creatively, but this is not untrue of any other inconsistency in any of the other series.
In "The Time Trap," Scotty could have meant the first STARFLEET vessel equipped with warp drive. Actually, Curt Danhauser did some analysis of the dialogue and the determined age of the Bonaventure works out as being pretty consistent with what ENT has established about the age of Starfleet. Annotations from my own shiplist:
There are several curiosities surrounding this vessel. In the episode, Scotty said �Look Captain, there�s the old Bonaventure! She was the first ship to have warp drive installed....� This would seem to contradict what has since been established about early space travel and the history of Earth spacecraft. There are several possible rationalizations, however, which might serve to remedy this discrepancy. For instance, Scotty could have been referring to the first Starfleet vessel to have warp drive installed.
If the Bonaventure was the first Starfleet vessel to be fitted with warp drive, this suggests a launch date sometime in the late 2130s, when Starfleet was supposedly founded. This is consistent with another line from the episode, where Spock says �The crew�s descendents may still be living....� Assuming �descendents� refers to at least grandchildren, (rather than immediate offspring) and taking into account the approximate probable lifespan of crewmembers, (likely no more than 90 or so years) it seems that the Bonaventure could have been lost not much later than 2150, and possibly earlier. Therefore a launch date in the 2130s is quite reasonable, especially allowing for the ship to be in service for at least some time prior to its loss.
In regards to Dr. April's line in "The Counter-Clock Incident," she said "As the first medical officer aboard a ship equipped with warp drive, I'm afraid I had to come up with new ideas all the time." Now, isn't it possible she was using First Medical Officer as her title, rather than saying she was the doctor aboard the first ship with warp? This has been suggested before, works for me.
There is another conflict that is often mentioned, that in "The Magicks of Megas-Tu," the Enterprise supposedly visits the center of the galaxy, which would be inconsistent with Star Trek V. However, upon watching this episode, I find this one quite easy to debunk, requiring perhaps even less mental exercise than the above.
They are approaching the center of the galaxy when a "matter-energy whirlwind" siezes the ship and blows it off course. (This itself could be a manifestation of the Great Barrier mentioned in TFF.) When they recover, Spock says that "...navigational coordinates mean very little here...my readings indicate that we are not in time and space as we understand it." The subspace radio and ship's chronometer become nonfunctional, and Spock further tells that "the natural laws of our universe don't operate here." In short, they are in some parallel dimension or universe. (An occurrence that happened often enough in TOS and elsewhere.) Thus, it is apparent that they are NOT in fact at the center of our galaxy. And that is simply based on the dialogue of the episode, even without any further speculation.
Needless to say, this speaks nothing as to the innate silliness of even being able to reach the center of the galaxy in any reasonable span of time with warp drive alone, but that of course is equally problematic in TFF...
Ok. Any other conflicts in need of resolving?
-MMoM Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Rationalizaions over cartoon dialogue.
I'm going to bed.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Rationalizations over TREK dialogue. Most definitely not an unknown occurrence on this board.
I really have a problem with this attitude which holds that because it's a cartoon, this inherently means that less thought was put into it than the live action series. It was mostly the same people working on it, and just like TOS it had its ups and downs. Overall, it's still decent Trek.
-MMoM Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I personally just like to ignore the Bonaventure and Sarah April lines.
Another rationalization of "Megas-Tu" I heard of was that the entire story could've been a collective hallucination. It certainly was a strange story.
The "200 years ago" concerning the Kzinti wars from "The Slaver Weapon" also need some clarification. First, we should assume Sulu made a very generous guess, and that the term "war" is slightly overrated. Like suggested before by Timo et al., the four wars were more likely to be four attack waves. And preferably attack waves by big old clumsy low-warp vessels, supported by fast but completely ineffective sublight fighters.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Well, generally speaking, "ignoring" things isn't a viable option if you're trying to look at the Trek universe as "real." (Meaning at least marginally sensical and internally consistent.)
But yeah.
-MMoM Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
(To jump onto the otherside of the argument) Trek fans ignore live action stuff all the time. Riker calling O'Brien "lieutenant", Riker saying the Yamato's registry number incorrectly, the fact that the Borg were in Federation space before "Q Who", the fact that McCoy says that the Vulcans were "conquered", Trelane saying that TOS is actually set in the 27th century, Data's use on contractions in several season 1 episodes, Kirk's Enterprise being under the control of UESPA in season 1, "James R. Kirk", the fact that Ensign Galloway is seen in an episode of TOS after he's been killed, the whole of "The Last Outpost" (personally), "Faster than Light, no left or right", and so on.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
All too true. Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:Ensign Galloway is seen in an episode of TOS after he's been killed
Huh? I thought David Ross' character in "Day of the Dove" had a different name. Or are you referring to another episode?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I'm going off both the Nitpicker Guide and the Encyclopedia. To be honest, I don't even recall what episode he died in. I do believe that Galloway was in Turnabout: Intruder though, and that if he did die, it'd have had to have been in an episode prior to that one.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
It seems to me that what this boils down to is that, for any number of reasons, Star Trek the TV show is a cultural icon and Star Trek the cartoon is an historical curiosity. Few people talk about it because few people have seen it, and few people have seen it because it's a cultural artifact of limited appeal within a cultural artifact that itself occupies a (admittedly sizable) cultural niche.
Cultural!
Somebody should write a FAQ or something.
Anyway, "what everybody agrees really happened" in Star Trek (avoiding the increasingly silly and annoying (at least personally) "canon") is ultimately dependant on the people who've seen it, including those making it, and therefore is of course dependant on what they've seen. Had Paramount gone with Phase II, for instance, and for some reason garnered less of an audience than a televised Senate quorum, leading them to forget all about it when they tried again, I suspect we'd be having the same argument. So, in other words, it isn't an issue of quality (or at least, not directly an issue of quality), but availability, and availability during a certain crucial period. You can't just inject something into a subculture ex post facto and have it garner the kind of credibility it may have developed otherwise.
Fandoms are all kinds of weird.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
But only as weird as the cultures they are part of. B)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)