RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,373
Posts: 5,504,195
Members: 25,126
Currently online: 441
Newest member: Ted Dave

TrekToday headlines

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

Rumor Mill: Saldana Gives Birth
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

New Line of Anovos Enterprise Uniforms
By: T'Bonz on Dec 11


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Star Trek - Original Series

Star Trek - Original Series The one that started it all...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 5 2014, 03:03 AM   #76
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: TAS: why not canon?

Even without the "space kissing," there's still a fair amount of romantic and sexual themes in TAS. "The Lorelei Signal" is about sexy space Amazons seducing the men in the crew and making them all horny. "The Survivor" featured a love story. The first thing Sulu does when attempting magic in "The Magicks of Megas-tu" is to summon up a beautiful woman. "Mudd's Passion" is all about a love potion. "The Time Trap" features one of the most scantily-clad Orion women in all of Trek. "The Jihad" has the sexy Lara flirting with Kirk. Like the violence, the sexy stuff is approached more obliquely but not actually absent.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2014, 11:23 AM   #77
Redfern
Commodore
 
Redfern's Avatar
 
Location: Georgia, USA
Re: TAS: why not canon?

Christopher wrote: View Post
"The Survivor" featured a love story.
Which may have resulted in some off-screen tentacle sex!

Yes, I had to go there.

Sincerely,

Bill
__________________
Tempt the Hand of Fate and it'll give you the "finger"!

Freighter Tails: the Misadventures of Mzzkiti
Redfern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2014, 12:22 PM   #78
martok2112
Captain
 
Re: TAS: why not canon?

Redfern wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
"The Survivor" featured a love story.
Which may have resulted in some off-screen tentacle sex!

Yes, I had to go there.

Sincerely,

Bill
Rule 34.
__________________
If at first you don't secede, try and petition again.
martok2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2014, 06:41 PM   #79
suarezguy
Commodore
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Re: TAS: why not canon?

TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Then why is garbage "Plato's Stepchildren" canon when fantastic novels like Prime Directive aren't?
One is a produced episode from TOS--the other is a novel. If we were to employ your criteria, then anything subjectively considered "fantastic" suddenly becomes canon--whether it is a novel, comic book, or even questionable descriptions on the backing cards of action figures.
What's wrong with taking the reset into account? (Well, action figure descriptions probably aren't meant to be taken seriously) If the powers that be think something is good enough to be written, published, sold and experienced I think it's good enough to not be ignored in making other installments.
The only problem I see is that there could be too much material, overly cumbersome for people making or even advising the "main" product, but it's not as if the onscreen material hasn't contradicted itself.

TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post
It is that kind of thinking which--for some time--destroyed Star Wars continuity, as everything from every source was argued or used as canonical source, when the films were created to tell the story, without "help" or embellishment from other sources.

Recently, the SW PTB has revised its canon list, dumping much of the dreaded "expanded universe" which polluted the series since the 80's.
I thought it was impressive that they set out to and largely succeeded in making a consistent fictional universe over many years and installments. I like more developed universes but don't think the SW films relied on the novels.
__________________
"Let us punish the guilty! Let us reward the innocent."
suarezguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6 2014, 04:41 AM   #80
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: TAS: why not canon?

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
I think to GR, "canon" and "Continuity" were what he liked at the moment. He was more than happy to dump something from the continuity of his creation, even if it was in the canon.
His original plan for TNG would have meant dumping everything that came before except for the names "Starfleet," "Federation," and "Enterprise." Those around him like Gerrold and Justman had to push to get TNG to have anything to do with Star Trek beyond the title.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6 2014, 04:45 AM   #81
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: TAS: why not canon?

T'Girl wrote: View Post
It was a attempt by the fans of the time to begin to figure out what parts of Trek was real and what wasn't, what information would one day be referred to as "canon."
Rather a waste of mental energy considering that none of it is real.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6 2014, 06:21 AM   #82
plynch
Commodore
 
plynch's Avatar
 
Location: Outer Graceland
View plynch's Twitter Profile
Re: TAS: why not canon?

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
I think to GR, "canon" and "Continuity" were what he liked at the moment. He was more than happy to dump something from the continuity of his creation, even if it was in the canon.
His original plan for TNG would have meant dumping everything that came before except for the names "Starfleet," "Federation," and "Enterprise." Those around him like Gerrold and Justman had to push to get TNG to have anything to do with Star Trek beyond the title.
And only one of those things was really his brainchild, and it was almost Yorktown.
__________________
Author of Live Like Louis! Inspirational Stories from the Life of Louis Armstrong, http://livelikelouis.com
plynch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 9 2014, 05:59 AM   #83
PCz911
Lieutenant Commander
 
PCz911's Avatar
 
Re: TAS: why not canon?

Lots of really interesting comments. One of the things I picked up on was the whole "richard Arnold hated TAS thread". Since he is so accessible at various events I asked him flat out about tas. This is his reply:

"Gene used to say that he only did it because he needed money at the time, and therefor things that he would never have allowed in live action Star Trek made it into the episodes. In fact, there were only a couple of episodes that he considered to be decent!"

I'm sure smarter folks than I can make out what to think about this. I was curious about the comments and, when given a chance, flat out asked.

Thoughts?
PCz911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 9 2014, 01:38 PM   #84
Nightowl1701
Captain
 
Location: Orlando, FL
Re: TAS: why not canon?

Well, Gene certainly did need money at the time, that's beyond dispute. But, as Wikipedia tells us, "Roddenberry was granted full (emphasis mine) creative control of Star Trek: The Animated Series (1973–1974); although he read all scripts and 'sometimes [added] touches of his own', he relinquished most of his authority to de facto showrunner/associate producer D.C. Fontana." So that whole "I would never have allowed this" excuse really doesn't fly. The only thing he didn't have any control over was Chekov not returning (the voice actor budget not big enough to include Koenig).

As far as things he personally might have found objectionable, it's hard to say. Maybe the tribbles returning, or the crossover with Larry Niven's Kzinti, or Kirk not being able to get it on with alien babes in cartoon form, or the characters of Arex and M'Ress in general ("Don't design characters I can't do in live-action!"). The holodeck he obviously didn't have a problem with, and "Magicks of Megas-Tu" and "The Jihad" would have been right up his religion-questioning alley.
Nightowl1701 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 9 2014, 01:52 PM   #85
Ithekro
Fleet Captain
 
Ithekro's Avatar
 
Location: Republic of California
Re: TAS: why not canon?

Not sure if the wording should have been "allowed to be in live action Star Trek" but more 'couldn't have gotten into live action Star Trek'. There were a lot of things you can do in animation that you can't do in live action in the 1970s, and couldn't really start doing well until the late 1990s and 2000s. There were also thing that were done in animation that were there to cut costs (to allow the reuse of cells more often) such a the life support shield belts that never made in into other Star Treks.

But also things that were left out until the Next Generation...the holodeck being the primary thing.
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 9 2014, 02:07 PM   #86
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: TAS: why not canon?

I can buy this as an explanation for Roddenberry's attitude, but it's important to keep in mind that he felt the same about most of the movies and even parts of TOS. There was a lot of stuff that he wanted to de-canonize late in life but that we now accept as canon. So there's no reason TAS should be the exception.

After all, he may have come up with the initial idea, but Star Trek was not exclusively about Gene Roddenberry and his opinions. His collaborators and freelance writers contributed enormously to the series. TOS would've been far less than it was without D.C. Fontana's contributions, and she also co-created TNG no matter what the credits say. And TAS was her show. Why shouldn't that count toward its authenticity? If Roddenberry chose to delegate the running of the show to her, then that was his creative choice and he should've owned it and stood by her, rather than later saying "Oh, that doesn't count because I didn't do it personally."
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 11 2014, 03:45 AM   #87
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: TAS: why not canon?

Christopher wrote: View Post
TOS would've been far less than it was without D.C. Fontana's contributions, and she also co-created TNG no matter what the credits say.
I wish the remastered main titles had added Fontana (and Gerrold? and Justman?) to the created by credit. They certainly deserved it, but I imagine that would have required more of a fight than anyone would have been willing to engage in.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 11 2014, 05:20 PM   #88
drt
Commander
 
Re: TAS: why not canon?

Christopher wrote: View Post
I can buy this as an explanation for Roddenberry's attitude, but it's important to keep in mind that he felt the same about most of the movies and even parts of TOS. There was a lot of stuff that he wanted to de-canonize late in life but that we now accept as canon. So there's no reason TAS should be the exception.
I can understand him wishing to de-canonize the movies, which I'm guessing really means 2-6, since he was cut out of the production of those. Although, I think he might have been OK with TVH, as I got the feeling Nimoy included him a bit more in some manner, plus Majel was in it. I actually met Gene in the fall of 1986, and he seemed pleased and excited about it's upcoming release.
drt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 11 2014, 05:57 PM   #89
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: TAS: why not canon?

drt wrote: View Post
I can understand him wishing to de-canonize the movies, which I'm guessing really means 2-6, since he was cut out of the production of those.
Yeah... I think he wanted to reduce ST to something that was purely his (which it never entirely was) and shut out anything where others were the primary creators. Ironically, TAS was the one Trek production where he was given absolute, unfettered creative control, but he chose to hand the responsibility off to Fontana instead, and then later dismissed it because it wasn't sufficiently his. Which seems pretty hypocritical. I have to wonder if he really knew what he wanted.


Although, I think he might have been OK with TVH, as I got the feeling Nimoy included him a bit more in some manner, plus Majel was in it. I actually met Gene in the fall of 1986, and he seemed pleased and excited about it's upcoming release.
Well, that doesn't necessarily prove anything; the people involved with an upcoming production are always going to say good things about it because they don't want to hurt their chances of making money from it. But I think that TVH probably did come closer to Roddenberry's view of Trek than most of the other films did, since it was socially conscious and positive and not very violent or militaristic.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 11 2014, 06:16 PM   #90
drt
Commander
 
Re: TAS: why not canon?

I perhaps didn't word that very well, I know Gene would never bad-mouth anything that would put a nickel in his pocket, but he seemed more honestly genuine in his praise of TVH, likely for the reasons you mentioned.
drt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.