Does the animated series complete the 5 year mission since the original series was canceled?
Is the animated series a good sequel to the original series?
- Thread starter SailorLadyGaga
- Start date
It continues the five-year mission. We never see the actual end of the mission.
As far as whether it is a good sequel or not, I would say that several episodes are good, while others aren't quite up to par (like just about any show, really).
Kor
I think of it more as a revival than a sequel, in the way that the new episodes of The X-Files or Mystery Science Theater 3000 are revivals. Sure, it was in animation, but it brought back (nearly all) the same cast, had many of the same writers, and continued telling stories in essentially the same vein, just shorter with more exotic aliens and settings and new ships, and less sex and violence. It's as direct a continuation of TOS as it was possible for it to be. And yes, I think it was generally pretty good. It certainly had some duds, but it had some excellent episodes too, and it added a lot of worthwhile stuff to the universe.
We never see the end of the 5 year mission, but I've always had a soft spot in my heart for "The Counter-Clock Incident" as a series finale for TOS. That episode does have the feeling (probably by accident) of a circle-being-completed, and it seems oddly appropriate that the final episode featuring the pre-Refit version of NCC-1701 should also feature her original Captain, Robert April, as a guest character.
And in agreement with Christopher above, my own viewpoint, even as far back as the 1990s when TAS was still of more questionable canonicity, was that TAS was a whole-hearted (and very welcome) attempt at reviving TOS, not simply a cookie-cutter show like so many other Saturday morning cartoons based on live-action TV shows from the same vintage. And as David Gerrold articulates on the DVD bonus features, it also felt faintly ridiculous to me at the time that a show which returns nearly the entire original cast, and which made such an sterling effort to maintain the visual design of it's live-action counterpart (in terms of replicating the uniforms and the set designs), would be relegated to a secondary status within the fandom.
And in agreement with Christopher above, my own viewpoint, even as far back as the 1990s when TAS was still of more questionable canonicity, was that TAS was a whole-hearted (and very welcome) attempt at reviving TOS, not simply a cookie-cutter show like so many other Saturday morning cartoons based on live-action TV shows from the same vintage. And as David Gerrold articulates on the DVD bonus features, it also felt faintly ridiculous to me at the time that a show which returns nearly the entire original cast, and which made such an sterling effort to maintain the visual design of it's live-action counterpart (in terms of replicating the uniforms and the set designs), would be relegated to a secondary status within the fandom.
It was one hell of a good effort that stayed as true to TOS as the format and timeslot allowed. It kept a lot of the core group close and working together, perhaps without it there wouldn't have been any movies or TNG.
M
marlboro
Guest
I wonder how many kids became Trek fans due to the cartoon.
I only watched it for the first time a few years ago, but I really enjoyed it.
I only watched it for the first time a few years ago, but I really enjoyed it.
As a kid, I discovered TOS and TAS within weeks of each other, while TAS was still in first run. So I thought of them as a single show that was sometimes a one-hour live-action program and sometimes a half-hour cartoon. And the first Trek book I ever had was Alan Dean Foster's Star Trek Log Three, adapting three TAS episodes. So TAS wasn't the sole reason I became a fan, but it was as much a part of the process as TOS was.
Although chronologically it fits in after TOS, it's really more of an animated adaptation of Star Trek than a sequel.
When I get to my TAS DVD set, I'm going to try to recreate the child's frame of mind I had on Saturday mornings in 1973. Everything was different then, including me.
The simple answer, is No.
TAS is just a fun, tacky relic of 70's animation.
It doesn't mesh well with TOS with its cartoon aliens, repetitive music or energy.
The redeeming value is just seeing Star Trek in cartoon form, voiced by the actual actors. It's not "Season 4", or the final missions or anything. I wouldn't consider it canon!
If the wiki article is to be believed, it isn't canon and yet elements of TAS have been used in later series and movies so it's an interesting discussion
Not the canon debate again! 
Really.
Bottom line is TAS made a few significant contributions to the known Trek universe that made it into later live-action series and movies, even remastered TOS - clearly because the creators of those had an affection for it. Just as many fans like myself do.
Bottom line is TAS made a few significant contributions to the known Trek universe that made it into later live-action series and movies, even remastered TOS - clearly because the creators of those had an affection for it. Just as many fans like myself do.
Last edited:
Given that it was in a new time slot and exposed the show to a younger audience, I'm sure it did bring in a number of new fans. As I said, I was brought into fandom as much by TAS as TOS. I was always a Filmation fan, so if I hadn't discovered TOS when I did, I probably would've discovered TAS shortly thereafter anyway.
It's sad that this myth even persists on Wikipedia. The only time it was considered "not canon" was for a short period after 1989 when Gene Roddenberry issued a memo saying he didn't consider it to count. That was partly due to Filmation's bankruptcy leaving TAS's ownership status unclear, and largely due to Roddenberry's own ego making him intolerant of any iteration of Star Trek that he didn't personally supervise; he also considered some of the later movies and portions of TOS's third season non-canonical. And it was really hypocritical, because TAS was the one Trek production on which Roddenberry was allowed absolute creative control, since NBC was so eager to get it back on the air that they offered him unprecedented freedom. So he had the power to make TAS whatever he wanted -- but he chose to shrug it off and leave it in D.C. Fontana's hands, so he had a hell of a nerve to turn around and complain that it wasn't "real Star Trek" because of his lack of oversight. If he trusted Fontana to be the sole caretaker of new Star Trek in 1973, then he was a total jerk to dismiss the value of her achievement 16 years later. Although that's consistent, come to think of it, because she and David Gerrold were co-creators of TNG in 1987, and Roddenberry went out of his way to screw them out of rightful credit and claim it all for himself. It's no wonder he wanted to discredit Fontana's other Trek contributions along the way.
Anyway, Roddenberry died just two years after he issued that memo, and the memo ceased to be binding at that point, because Roddenberry and his assistant Richard Arnold were the only ones in authority who had enough of a problem with TAS to want it excluded. Subsequent Trek producers felt free to draw on elements from TAS (e.g. the Klothos as the name of Kor's ship, the kahs-wan ritual from "Yesteryear," etc.), and the novels and comics have been free to use TAS elements without any objections from Paramount/CBS. TAS is included alongside the canonical series on StarTrek.com and on Memory Alpha, the "canon-only" wiki. So the idea that TAS isn't canonical exists only as a myth within fandom, based on a memo that was nothing more than the product of one man's pettiness and that hasn't been in effect for more than a quarter of a century now.
The rule that's been used so many times is that what's on-screen is canon. I'm pretty sure TAS qualifies for that. It had the same cast, the same writers, and has been referenced many times in later Trek. Surely at this point it's canon status can't be questioned? Or is it simply because some people have an aversion to cartoons?
TAS not a sequel, and it has come good elements and some duds, (just like TOS) in my opinion one of the best Star Trek stories is in TAS called 'Yesteryear'.
The problem is that people tend to confuse "canon" with "continuity." By definition, the canon is the original body of work from the original creator or owner of the property. But not every part of a canon is necessarily in continuity, because long-running canons often change their continuity or disregard parts of it (e.g. when Dallas retconned an entire season as a really long dream in order to undo a character's death). There are parts of live-action Trek canon that have been disregarded by later canon, like the treatment of antimatter in "The Alternative Factor" (which itself contradicted what had previously been established about antimatter in "The Naked Time"), the easy trip to the center of the galaxy in ST V, the treatment of transwarp drive in "Threshold," etc.
So "What's onscreen is canon" simply means that Star Trek is a television/film series in its primary incarnation. Canon refers to the overall whole, not the individual parts, and it only really has meaning as a way of distinguishing the original body of work (the professionally made TV shows and movies) from its derivative offshoots like tie-in novels, comics, and fan fiction. And it's always been an oversimplification, since there have been Star Trek fan films for decades, and of course being onscreen hasn't magically made them "count." So it's not a legally binding definition or something. It's just a shorthand way of saying that Star Trek is a TV/movie franchise first and foremost, and that the books and comics are secondhand interpretations of that franchise.
The complication with TAS is that it wasn't produced by Paramount, but by Filmation Associates and Roddenberry's production company, the Norway Corporation. But at the time, Paramount didn't yet own Star Trek, Norway did, which is why they were able to make TAS without Paramount. So TAS was from the original owners of the property at the time it was made. The reason its canon status was in dispute in the late '80s was because Paramount then held the rights to all of Trek except TAS. So the distinction had more to do with business matters and who profited from the show than with any creative or continuity considerations. And once Paramount finally did obtain full ownership of TAS, the distinction ceased to matter. Once it was fully theirs, they were perfectly free to use its characters and elements along with those from every other onscreen Trek production. So from a legal and professional standpoint, there hasn't been any meaningful distinction between TAS and the other shows for decades.
Similar threads
