posted
Bernd is saying on his site that TAS may become canon. I have also seen articles on memory alpha that use TAS as canon source material. How'd this come about and who's responsible?
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
It's not likely to have anything to do with Memory Alpha. When I helped write the canon policy there, we decided to place a bit more emphasis on TAS, simply because it *WAS* a widely-watched series in its day. In cases where info conflicted with other stories, it's obviously overruled. But the whole bit about certain elements of certain episodes being canon, but not everything else, made little sense to me. So we decided it was worth including the material.
I think that Bernd's comment has something to do with a recent poll on StarTrek.com, but I'm not entirely sure.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
As Bernd explains on the very page to which you refer, there are several factors contributing to this shift in perception.
Startrek.com hosted a poll concerning whether or not TAS should be considered canonical, and the vote in favor overwhelmed the opposition by something like 2:1. The official website's FAQ for "what is canon" has also been updated, amending its language concerning TAS and the Jeri Taylor novels to be more and less inclusive, respectively.
In the booklet that accompanies the recently-released TAS DVDs there is a note which mentions the controversy over the series and, while hardly making a definitive statement, generally takes a favorable position.
Although probably not directly relevent to these other points, it's also worth mentioning that there were plans in the works for the Kzinti to appear on Enterprise's fifth season prior to its cancellation. (One of the proposed ship designs turned up a while back.)
The simple truth of the matter really is that, defunct Roddenberry edicts, licensing agreements, and statements pulled from Richard Arnold's ass notwithstanding, there is to this day NOTHING of substance preventing TAS from being considered as valid as any other series. Any inconsistencies are certainly no greater than those occurring between any of them, anyway.
posted
Not that this will change anything much at all. I'll wager the majority of the fans don't know, understand or even care what Canon is.
Even before TAS was considered Canon, elements of the series were already cropping in to Star Trek. Fontana's story "Yesteryear" dealt with basic elements of Spock's backstory and childhood that were accepted as Canon, for example.
And as for Jeri Taylor's novels, while they may have been considered as the basic backstory for all of Voyager's characters, it's not like the writers followed those backstories closely.
It all boils down to the writers and what they want to put into their scripts. These writers can't be expected to know every nuance of Star Trek (well, we expect them to, but they don't), nor does it appear Paramount uses anyone to ride herd over the scripts and making sure they all follow canon.
That is if/when new Trek is ever produced for the screen.
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Voyager writers couldn't even maintain 'canonicity' within the series, let alone between series. Infact sometimes in one season or even episode!
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
