RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,918
Posts: 5,478,291
Members: 25,052
Currently online: 561
Newest member: johnclever25

TrekToday headlines

New Star Trek Funko Pop! Vinyl Figures
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

QMx Mini Phaser Ornament
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Stewart as Neo-Nazi Skinhead
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Trek Actors In War Of The Worlds Fundraiser
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Star Trek: The Next Generation Gag Reel Tease
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Shatner In Haven
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21


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 1 2014, 09:43 PM   #16
TREK_GOD_1
Fleet Captain
 
TREK_GOD_1's Avatar
 
Location: Escaped from Delta Vega
Re: TAS: why not canon?

I've always considered it canon. The origin and quality of TAS, along with the wealth of TOS talent involved is as "Star Trek" as any production could be since TOS was cancelled.
__________________
"...to be like God, you have the power to make the world anything you want it to be."
TREK_GOD_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 1 2014, 10:08 PM   #17
DataRules
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: Bay Area, CA
Re: TAS: why not canon?

My favorite was The Lorelei Signal, the episode where Uhura takes command of the Enterprise because the 'Aliens of the Week' were able to control the men. Uhura and Chapel saved the day. I would have loved to see a live-action version of that episode.
DataRules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 1 2014, 11:33 PM   #18
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: TAS: why not canon?

Canonicity really doesn't matter. The Powers That Be see Trek as a mythology, picking and choosing which bits to incorporate into the latest iterations and casting off the stuff they don't like. Like every other Trek, some elements of TAS have been carried over while others have been ignored.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2 2014, 02:05 AM   #19
TREK_GOD_1
Fleet Captain
 
TREK_GOD_1's Avatar
 
Location: Escaped from Delta Vega
Re: TAS: why not canon?

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Canonicity really doesn't matter.
Yes, it does matter, as it is a way to keep the trash from soiling the overall product. That's the reason George Lucas never accepted The Star Wars Holiday Special as canon.
__________________
"...to be like God, you have the power to make the world anything you want it to be."
TREK_GOD_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2 2014, 02:10 AM   #20
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: TAS: why not canon?

TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Canonicity really doesn't matter.
Yes, it does matter, as it is a way to keep the trash from soiling the overall product.
It really doesn't matter. Canon or not, creators will ignore what is inconvenient to their stories.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 2 2014, 02:24 AM   #21
Melakon
Vice Admiral
 
Melakon's Avatar
 
Location: Unmarked grave, Ekos
Re: TAS: why not canon?

I really think canon is harder to determine now. There are no Roddenberrys, no Bermans, no Abrams overseeing everything in television and film anymore. We don't really know who's calling the shots.
__________________
Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard: For duty and humanity! --Men in Black (1934)
Melakon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2 2014, 02:37 AM   #22
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: TAS: why not canon?

Melakon wrote: View Post
I really think canon is harder to determine now. There are no Roddenberrys, no Bermans, no Abrams overseeing everything in television and film anymore. We don't really know who's calling the shots.
I don't think it really matters. Canon is more important to the fans than it is to the creators of the material.

"The Klingons were always suppose to look that way."
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 2 2014, 03:26 AM   #23
martok2112
Captain
 
Re: TAS: why not canon?

DataRules wrote: View Post
My favorite was The Lorelei Signal, the episode where Uhura takes command of the Enterprise because the 'Aliens of the Week' were able to control the men. Uhura and Chapel saved the day. I would have loved to see a live-action version of that episode.
That is probably my second favorite episode, for the very reasons you stated. . It sits just behind "Yesteryear" for me. Uhura and Chapel really have some nicely expanded roles throughout this series.

In truth, I personally consider TAS to be years 4 and 5 of the original five year mission...even though there aren't enough episodes to support such a notion.
__________________
If at first you don't secede, try and petition again.
martok2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2 2014, 04:23 AM   #24
plynch
Commodore
 
plynch's Avatar
 
Location: Outer Graceland
View plynch's Twitter Profile
Re: TAS: why not canon?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Melakon wrote: View Post
I really think canon is harder to determine now. There are no Roddenberrys, no Bermans, no Abrams overseeing everything in television and film anymore. We don't really know who's calling the shots.
I don't think it really matters. Canon is more important to the fans than it is to the creators of the material. . .
I think in GR's head it mattered, as he was spinning forth a universe (with the help of Coon, Fontana, et al.). And I know he had weird idiosyncrasies: TAS was in, then out, etc. But now, it's just a property wherewith to make money for shareholders. To us it's something we love, and an alternate universe to think and feel about, even to post on a BBS about. A job versus a love object. So, yes, it does matter more to us. Hence the oxymoronic "personal canon" often spotted 'round these parts. YMMV
__________________
Author of Live Like Louis! Inspirational Stories from the Life of Louis Armstrong, http://livelikelouis.com
plynch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2 2014, 09:18 AM   #25
drt
Commander
 
Re: TAS: why not canon?

Do we actually even know how Rodenberry really felt about TAS? My understanding is the statements stating it was decanonized by Rodenberry came from Richard Arnold, and I think it's been demonstrated that Richard Arnold had his own agenda.

martok2112 wrote: View Post
In truth, I personally consider TAS to be years 4 and 5 of the original five year mission...even though there aren't enough episodes to support such a notion.
This is pretty much how I look at it, too.
drt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2 2014, 09:21 AM   #26
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: TAS: why not canon?

TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Canonicity really doesn't matter.
Yes, it does matter, as it is a way to keep the trash from soiling the overall product. That's the reason George Lucas never accepted The Star Wars Holiday Special as canon.
Then why is garbage "Plato's Stepchildren" canon when fantastic novels like Prime Directive aren't? The official policy is a separation by media, not quality control. The closest we ever got to that is a footnote that Gene Roddenberry considered STV: TFF apocryphal in the Trek Ency (and decades later, there was a similar comment posted online by the Okudas regarding VOY: "Threshold"), but did that ever stop Paramount or CBS including it in box sets? Nope. In practice, they (meaning whoever's in charge at the time, be it Roddenberry, Bennett, Berman or Abrams) just ignore the bits they didn't like going forward.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2 2014, 05:15 PM   #27
TREK_GOD_1
Fleet Captain
 
TREK_GOD_1's Avatar
 
Location: Escaped from Delta Vega
Re: TAS: why not canon?

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. 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.

Star Trek should be handled in the same way.
__________________
"...to be like God, you have the power to make the world anything you want it to be."
TREK_GOD_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2 2014, 05:30 PM   #28
PCz911
Lieutenant Commander
 
PCz911's Avatar
 
Re: TAS: why not canon?

drt wrote: View Post
Do we actually even know how Rodenberry really felt about TAS? My understanding is the statements stating it was decanonized by Rodenberry came from Richard Arnold, and I think it's been demonstrated that Richard Arnold had his own agenda.

martok2112 wrote: View Post
In truth, I personally consider TAS to be years 4 and 5 of the original five year mission...even though there aren't enough episodes to support such a notion.
This is pretty much how I look at it, too.
Interesting. Forgive my ignorance, but what was Richard's agenda and why/how did it affect TAS?
PCz911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2 2014, 05:33 PM   #29
PCz911
Lieutenant Commander
 
PCz911's Avatar
 
Re: TAS: why not canon?

Melakon wrote: View Post
I really think canon is harder to determine now. There are no Roddenberrys, no Bermans, no Abrams overseeing everything in television and film anymore. We don't really know who's calling the shots.
Wow, hadn't thought about that before. This is a really good point. Who is at the helm? Or is it just a corporate property run by a committee of faceless bureaucrats? JJ Is off on star wars and is likely abandoned his rebooted universe. Are they planning to have someone else come in? Will it be like batman, where they have numerous re boots?
PCz911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2 2014, 06:08 PM   #30
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: TAS: why not canon?

drt wrote: View Post
Do we actually even know how Rodenberry really felt about TAS? My understanding is the statements stating it was decanonized by Rodenberry came from Richard Arnold, and I think it's been demonstrated that Richard Arnold had his own agenda.
According to Lou Scheimer: Creating the Filmation Generation by Scheimer and Andy Mangels, NBC gave Roddenberry complete creative control over TAS as part of his contract -- making it one of the only shows in TV history where the producers were given absolute carte blanche, free from network interference (The Simpsons is the only other example I know of). Given how much Roddenberry clashed with the network suits, I'd think that at the time, he probably loved it. And TAS therefore probably represents the truest example of Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek -- at least, at the time it was made -- than anything else in the franchise. Whether he changed his mind about it in later years, though, I can't say.

As I understand it, the main reason Paramount distanced themselves from TAS in the '90s was because Filmation went bankrupt and the ownership of TAS was unclear. But that's no longer the case -- CBS owns it completely along with the rest of the franchise. TAS is included along with the other shows on the "canon-only" reference sites Startrek.com and Memory Alpha. Multiple productions including DS9 and ENT episodes and the 2009 movie have referenced elements from it. And we tie-in novelists never get told we can't refer to it. So I think TAS is as canonical as anything else now. The reasons for its decanonization -- the bankruptcy and either Roddenberry's or Arnold's agenda -- ceased to matter two decades ago, and the ban has not been observed in nearly as long.
__________________
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
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 03:48 PM.

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