posted
I only said that the Klingon fist contact date was wrong ONCE. Why have I not said it again? Because I realized that it wasn't really a violation. I made a simple mistake.
However I do like to express the opinion that as long as Paramount approves the material published in the Chronology, maybe they should bother to stick with it. There's no point in publishing a work that will become invalidated with every passing episode. It's worthless.
As to TAS, they can't have it both ways. It can't be picked-and-chosen which episodes of a series are canon. Either a series is canon, or it isn't. Since numerous parts of TAS are canon, that retroactively makes the entire series canon. It's only logical.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
posted
The Producers are not "picking and choosing" which "The Animated Series" episodes are canon. They have been "inspired" by, or "come to the same conclusion" as a few of the episodes, supposedly such as the one about Spock's youth. Does that mean that episode has become canon? No.
Besides, does not that "Bonaventure" episode kind of take "The Animated Series" out of continuity consideration?
posted
I assume Mighty Monkey of Mim's last post was directed at me, but, even if it was not, the question still needs to be asked: why would what be?
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I believe our esteemed simian friend means to ask why the appearance in an animated episode of Bonaventure, supposedly the first ship with warp drive, would necessarily make the entire animated series non-canon or take it out of continuity.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The appearance of a "Bonaventure" as the first (Starfleet?) ship equipped with warp drive in "The Animated Series," would seem to indicated that the powers that be do not recognize "The Animated Series" as canon, just as the Paramount website claims," an no amount of wishing it was canon will make it so.
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
If they had used a design like Masao's D6, it would have been given the same treatment as the Enterprise itself. It's just a previous ship slightly altered.
Also, just because there have been references to TAS in canon Trek, that doesn't make TAS canon. They're just in-jokes. Are we to assume, since the Bolians are named after Cliff Bole, that human explorers, on making contact w/ Bolians, decided to make the English name for them from the name of an obscure television director from the late twentieth century? Just because TPTB named something after a thing in TAS, that doesn't mean it was really named for it in the context of the show.
posted
Watch, when Enterprise is over, the ship class maybe named after Archer as a joke... He may even get something similar to the Picard Manuever.
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
And now the answer to why the Klingons weren't interested in the cloaking device: In "Broken Bow", Ambassador Soval clearly says that he 'used some kind of stealth technology'.
(He could've been also referring to the Suliban, however)
posted
Mighty Monkey of Mim: Your analogy for The Animated Series doesn't work, though. If that were the case, then there is just as much reason for Franz Joseph's Starfleet Technical Manual to be considered canon since a couple ship designs in there were background decoration on a few bridge screens. But that work is not canon. You said earlier that it was Paramount that has the authority to declare canonicity. Therefore, they do have the ability to say that part of something is canon while another is not.
As for sticking to the Chronology and Encyclopedia, for the most part the Star Trek following the release of those works has stayed true to them. However, you must remember that a good deal of the commentary in them is Okuda's beliefs on the matter. In the case of Klingon first contact, he opted to go with a reference from "The Day of the Dove" rather than "First Contact." The latter had a more compelling case for it, but he went with the former instead. His book, his opinion, but he doesn't write the movies or episodes.
Harry: I think Sovall was referring to both Klingon ship and the Suliban ship(s) having stealth technology. I think one of the admirals asked why they didn't detect any of the strange vessels nearing Earth. I do think that the Klingons could have a stealth device at this point. I don't think the Klingon ship in "Unexpected" was using it because it seems the Klingons only bother using it when they are about to attack. Koord said as much in The Final Frontier. This ship here seemed to be on routine patrol, but there's also the possibility that the systems troubles were affecting the stealth device as well.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
posted
The Franz Joseph Tech manual is a book. Tech books are semi-canon, canon until contradicted by the show. I have no problem accepting all parts of the Tech Manual that haven't been. This includes everything but the incorrect Connie registries, the floating Starfleet Academy, and the star chart which places UFP headquarters a REALLY, REALLY long ways from Earth.
The Tech Manual is not non-canon, as so many believe, because Roddenberry declared it so. It is not canon because numerous elements of it hve been blatantly contradicted since its publication.
That doesn't mean that everything in it is invalid, just that the parts which aren't accurate are.
And again, aside from the early references in TMP, the writers no longer consider Joseph's work as a reliable resource to draw on. That is why it is non-canon. It is a different case with TAS is that it has been considered as a valid resource to draw material from.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
quote: The Producers are not "picking and choosing" which "The Animated Series" episodes are canon. They have been "inspired" by, or "come to the same conclusion" as a few of the episodes
Semantics. But the conclusion remains the same. You and I, the producers, and everyone else who wishes to do so may pick and choose whatever we want to be canon and non-canon.
Choosing canon is entirely subjective and is therefore impossible to argue. Determining why something should or should not be is, however, objective and subject for debate.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
posted
Exactly. Paramount can say what it wants to consider to be a part of the official and proper Star Trek canon, but it's up to the fans to fill in the gaps that the episodes and movies create. And this leads up right back to the issue that started this debate. The fans, in their own minds, have the final say of what to accept or not. It's not wrong; it's just a way of completing the Star Trek univserse. When it becomes wrong is when the non-canon tries to take on an equal or greater importance to what is canon.
And, Monkey of Mim, you are missing the point. Both Starfleet Technical Manual and The Animated Series are considered non-canon by Paramount. Some fans consider them canon in their own minds for varying reasons. They are both a source where some information can be gleaned from, but to consider the whole canon when just tidbits are pulled into episodes and movies is illogical. It matters not that one is a book and one is a cartoon. Only the parts that appear in the episodes and movies are canon, everything else is still non-canon and subject to change on the whims of the writers.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
