The Star Trel Cartoon. Do you consider it canon?

[Emperor-Tiberius]

Actually, Trek's continuity as a whole is excellent, given the ludicrous amount of it that's been made. But once again you are confusing a canon with continuity. Enterprise and TOS, arguably, contradict each other's continuity - pretty badly in parts, imho. But both are and have always been, part of Trek's canon. The definition of a canon isn't altered by continuity errors within its works.

Look, to put this simply: A series is canon when its original elements are used afterwards and reference back to the place of origin.

TAS elements have re-appeared in Trek, throughout all of them. Especially ENT, which would've re-introduced the Kzinti.

Now, if there were an episode of the Kzinti, there wouldn't have been any questions regarding TAS's canonicity now, would there? A pity ENT didn't go to season 5, just for that.

In 'The Return' novel series, Kirk is resurrected, and the Romulans ally with the Borg. Onscreen, this never occurs, and we ally with the Romulans in the Dominion war.

Shows what you know. The Romulan Empire never sided with the Borg - rather, a selective group of renegade Romulan generals and Commanders decide to side with the Borg to obliberate the Federation and gain appreciation, afterwards. Kinda like with that whole Cardassian/Romulan invasion to the Dominion, back in the third season of DS9.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Actually, Trek's continuity as a whole is excellent, given the ludicrous amount of it that's been made. But once again you are confusing a canon with continuity. Enterprise and TOS, arguably, contradict each other's continuity - pretty badly in parts, imho. But both are and have always been, part of Trek's canon. The definition of a canon isn't altered by continuity errors within its works.

Look, to put this simply: A series is canon when its original elements are used afterwards and reference back to the place of origin.

Those elements become canon because they were referenced, not the entire series. An example would be the Ushaan in United. The Ushaan is taken from an RPG called Among the Clans. Among the Clans is not canon, but the Ushaan is. See the difference?

TAS elements have re-appeared in Trek, throughout all of them. Especially ENT, which would've re-introduced the Kzinti.

Now, if there were an episode of the Kzinti, there wouldn't have been any questions regarding TAS's canonicity now, would there? A pity ENT didn't go to season 5, just for that.

That would make the Kzinti canon (which I would love, btw, just like I'd love all of the animated series to be canon). It wouldn't make The Slaver Weapon canon.

 

[cultcross]

Actually, Trek's continuity as a whole is excellent, given the ludicrous amount of it that's been made. But once again you are confusing a canon with continuity. Enterprise and TOS, arguably, contradict each other's continuity - pretty badly in parts, imho. But both are and have always been, part of Trek's canon. The definition of a canon isn't altered by continuity errors within its works.

Look, to put this simply: A series is canon when its original elements are used afterwards and reference back to the place of origin.

Nope, a series is canonical when it is a live action show made under the Star Trek banner. You can't get much more simply put: 'Live action series or movie? part of the canon. Anything else? not.'

Now, if there were an episode of the Kzinti, there wouldn't have been any questions regarding TAS's canonicity now, would there?

Indeed. It would still be completely non-canonical. However, the Kzinti would then be part of canon, solely because of their appearance in Enterprise.

In 'The Return' novel series, Kirk is resurrected, and the Romulans ally with the Borg. Onscreen, this never occurs, and we ally with the Romulans in the Dominion war.

Shows what you know. The Romulan Empire never sided with the Borg - rather, a selective group of renegade Romulan generals and Commanders decide to side with the Borg to obliberate the Federation and gain appreciation, afterwards. Kinda like with that whole Cardassian/Romulan invasion to the Dominion, back in the third season of DS9.

OK, I'll take your word for it, I've never read the thing, I got that from another thread. Another example, if you must, is 'Dark Mirror' by Duane - it directly contradicts the DS9 mirror universe episodes. My point, as I'm sure you grasped, was that the novels frequently come up with things that contradict things later (or even earlier) seen on screen. So do the technical manuals, video games, RPGs, comics, etc. that make up the Star Trek creative material outside of the canon. To maintain a coherence as a fictional interwoven and broadly self consistent universe on Screen, it is necessary to lay down which sources will be used to determine what has and has not happened at a given point.

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

But Paramount pretty much made it clear that TAS is canon, and Fontana calls it the TOS crew's fourth year, and the official Star Trek site aknowledges it as such.

At best, its canonicity, at the moment, is undecided. Was TAS always canon? No. But have recent resurgance on TOS force Paramount to reconsider TAS's position? Yes.

Besides, it was made by Roddenberry, and Fontana, featured the whole crew of TOS from season 1, and featured stories that would've featured in TOS, had it not cancelled.

And all this talk of "this element is canon, but the episode that originated these elements and story isn't" talk is just nit-picking, at best.

 

[Michael]

But Paramount pretty much made it clear that TAS is canon

When and where?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

But Paramount pretty much made it clear that TAS is canon

When?

the official Star Trek site aknowledges it as such.

Even if they have (which I hadn't heard), Startrek.com is technically not an authoritative source and can't declare anything to be canonical.

And all this talk of "this element is canon, but the episode that originated these elements and story isn't" talk is just nit-picking, at best.

Not really. Granted, it's irrelevant to argue whether or not the Enterprise got caught in the Delta Triangle, since it's not going to impact any other series. But for those who care about Star Trek timelines and stuff, they might have concerns accepting Time Trap's assertion that the USS Bonaventure was the first warp ship (what about the Phoenix from First Contact?). For instance, if they mentioned the Delta Triangle in an episode, that would become canon, this specific ship wouldn't become canonical. That's not any more nitpicking than any other argument about canon.

 

[cultcross]

But Paramount pretty much made it clear that TAS is canon,

They've been pretty consistent on saying it isn't, actually. where have you heard this?

At best, its canonicity, at the moment, is undecided. Was TAS always canon? No. But have recent resurgance on TOS force Paramount to reconsider TAS's position? Yes.

Highly unlikely - the new movie is sufficiently different to even TOS that the minutiae of TAS probably haven't crossed their minds. And I was unaware of any announcement regarding the status of the animate show's place in the canon.

And all this talk of "this element is canon, but the episode that originated these elements and story isn't" talk is just nit-picking, at best.

It's not nitpicky, its a very set definition which you seem quite keen to ignore. Any element seen/talked about on a live action show or movie, canonical. Not seen or heard about on a live action show or film, not canonical. Continuity errors tend to stray into nitpicky areas, the canon has a very set definition. As I said above, the only nitpicky area is things like deleted scenes, and whether they are considered apart of the live action product.

 

[Wowbagger]

Look, to put this simply: A series is canon when its original elements are used afterwards and reference back to the place of origin.

TAS elements have re-appeared in Trek, throughout all of them. Especially ENT, which would've re-introduced the Kzinti.

Now, if there were an episode of the Kzinti, there wouldn't have been any questions regarding TAS's canonicity now, would there?

Let's make this into a logical proposition, shall we?

The Animated Adventures of Star Trek is part of the Star Trek canon because it is referenced in live-action Star Trek productions (e.g. sehlat, Shi'kahr, Tiberius, Pallas 14, etc., etc.).

1. Principle: If a work is referenced in any live-action Star Trek production or other canon work, then that work is part of the Star Trek canon.
2. Fact: The Animated Adventures of Star Trek has been referenced in live-action Star Trek (examples: see above)
3. Conclusion: Therefore, The Animated Adventures of Star Trek is part of the Star Trek canon.

Interesting. Very interesting.

1. Principle: If a work is referenced in any live-action Star Trek production or other canon work, then that work is part of the Star Trek canon.
2. Fact: The Andorians: Among The Clans (Last Unicorn; 1998) has been referenced in live-action Star Trek or other canon work (example: ushaan in "United" [ENT])
3. Conclusion: Therefore, The Andorians: Among The Clans is part of the Star Trek canon.

Okay. Well, that's kinda psychidelic, but Among the Clans doesn't do a whole lot of damage on its own. It screws up the Star Charts, introduces a very interesting Andorian history involving a mass historical annihilation around the 20th Century, but that's nothing the continuity can't handle.

1. Principle: If a work is referenced in any live-action Star Trek production or other canon work, then that work is part of the Star Trek canon.
2. Fact: The Pocket line of Star Trek novels has been referenced in live-action Star Trek or other canon work (example: "The Forge" being a giant love song to Vulcan's Forge)
3. Conclusion: The Pocket line of Star Trek novels is part of the Star Trek canon.

And, with that, the Star Trek universe changes from a highly internally consistent universe unlike any other legendarium in size, scope, and continuity since Tolkien into a whole sort of general mish-mash of insanity and contradiction. You just made The Entropy Effect canon, which plays all hell with TOS, and don't forget Dark Mirror, which blows DS9 MU episodes to tiny bits. But wait! There's more!

Let's say, hypothetically, that that Enterprise episode had been made in Season 5, featuring the Kzinti!

1. Principle: If a work is referenced in any live-action Star Trek production or other canon work, then that work is part of the Star Trek canon.
2. Fact: Larry Niven's Known Space series has been referenced in live-action Star Trek or other canon work (example: hypothetical ENT episode)
3. Conclusion: Larry Niven's Known Space series is part of the Star Trek canon.

Boom. Your principle just destroyed the universe. You're like Q, only with madder skillz.

But wait! We didn't even need that hypothetical Season 5 episode to make Known Space canon! You already made TAS canon, and TAS "The Slaver Weapon" is a big homage to Known Space, therefore Known Space is canon!

Hey, I'm really getting rolling with this!

1. Principle: If a work is referenced in any live-action Star Trek production or other canon work, then that work is part of the Star Trek canon.
2. Fact: The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy has been referenced in live-action Star Trek or other canon work (Milliways and Sirius Cybernetics were both on DS9's Promenade listing, and Tricia McMillian's name appeared on a document in "The Schizoid Man.")
3. Conclusion: The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy is canon!

Earth is destroyed! The Vogons roam the universe! Bistromathics is a viable form of transport! Dolphins are smarter than humans! The answer to everything is forty-two! This is all canon now!

Clearly, this was not how you intended the principle you proposed to work. It is preposturous and insane. But it is how your idea works, logically, whether you like it or not.

References are just references. They're homages. Tips-of-the-hat, if you will. They are not a declaration of authority for anything. So canon, whatever else we may say about it, is definitively not determined by reference.

In a related observation, I think that the increasing tendency of Internet fans to declare new canon based on arbitrary rules independent of a higher studio authority ("I like it, therefore its canon." Yes, these fans always misuse "it's.") is a far, far greater threat to Star Trek than any JJ Abrams so-called "reboot." We stand the risk of opening the doors to everything, and, when that happens, Star Trek won't even be accessible to the fans anymore. It really would either kill the universe or, more likely, force a JMS/BSG-style canon wipe. And I don't think anyone arguing about canon wants that.

 

[Mistral]

I never consider "TREL" canon-but they are very tasty!

 

[NCC621]

A couple of episodes were pretty good, but most of the stories were weaker than even the third season of TOS. Not my cup of tea.

That said, it's fun to see the occasional nod to TAS in TNG, TOS-R and such.

 

[darthgordon]

I agree what with what has already been said. Canon has always been defined as what appeared in live action shows and movies. It's been this way since Roddenberry said it was that way. If you choose to pull something from TAS and use it in a live action show or movie, no problem. You don't have to adhear to it though.

Many people have not even seen TAS. I myself haven't seen more than a few episodes and don't remember them very well. Aside from a brief stint on Nickelodeon in the late 80's, it hasn't been anywhere since the 70's until it's recent DVD release.

Well said, I feel the same way. Apparently Terminator 3 is "out of canon" nowadays with The Sarah Chronicle and T4 on the way

That couldn't be further from the truth (although OT). If T3 were out, the TV show and T4 couldn't be possible. Remember, it was the ending of T3 that keeps the war with the Machines in the future. If not, T2 would have changed everything and there were would be no war, no Terminators, and no Skynet.

 

[AxelFoley]

That couldn't be further from the truth (although OT). If T3 were out, the TV show and T4 couldn't be possible. Remember, it was the ending of T3 that keeps the war with the Machines in the future. If not, T2 would have changed everything and there were would be no war, no Terminators, and no Skynet.

Tell that to them, the makers of the show has said it themselves. I'm sure The Sarah Chronicles will make sure there's a way for T4 to happen and T3 to be ignored. They are going to link T4 to the show, not T3.

 

[Kegek]

I don't think the Terminator case is comparable. What we have in the case of Terminator is conflicting continuities. Terminator 3 is in continuity with the first two Terminator films but it is not in continuity with the new TV show and vice versa (or so I understand it). The new movie that is coming out may not be in continuity with either Terminator 3 or the TV series. That's not as cut-and-dry as one is canon and the other is not canon; and many franchises have multiple continuities or elastic continuities. Star Trek's largely internally consistent continuity is if anything an aberration and a rarity.

 

[ktanner3]

I don't think the Terminator case is comparable. What we have in the case of Terminator is conflicting continuities. Terminator 3 is in continuity with the first two Terminator films but it is not in continuity with the new TV show and vice versa (or so I understand it). The new movie that is coming out may not be in continuity with either Terminator 3 or the TV series. That's not as cut-and-dry as one is canon and the other is not canon; and many franchises have multiple continuities or elastic continuities. Star Trek's largely internally consistent continuity is if anything an aberration and a rarity.

Agreed.Terminator and Star Trek are apples and oranges. I fail to see why anyone would use that franchise as an example.

 

[AxelFoley]

I don't think the Terminator case is comparable. What we have in the case of Terminator is conflicting continuities. Terminator 3 is in continuity with the first two Terminator films but it is not in continuity with the new TV show and vice versa (or so I understand it). The new movie that is coming out may not be in continuity with either Terminator 3 or the TV series. That's not as cut-and-dry as one is canon and the other is not canon; and many franchises have multiple continuities or elastic continuities. Star Trek's largely internally consistent continuity is if anything an aberration and a rarity.

Agreed.Terminator and Star Trek are apples and oranges. I fail to see why anyone would use that franchise as an example.

I brought it up because it was an example of how I thought it sucked that a company will tell us what is and is not canon.

 

[JM1776]

I brought it up because it was an example of how I thought it sucked that a company will tell us what is and is not canon.

It may suck ... but it's their right.

 

[doubleohfive]

I have yet to hear, read, or find any logical explanation that would preclude TAS, for my own personal perspective as a fan, from being considered canon, so I generally, by default, consider it so. That, and the fact that fandom creating silly, hardline, blanket rules about what "is" canon and what "isn't" strike me as ridiculous.

If you want it to be canon, it is.

Now, before all the canon police and other nerds go racing to copy the dictionary.com definitions for a silly idiot like me, let me explain.

When I say "If you want it to be canon, it is.", I am not saying that just because you wish it so that it is so. (If that were the case, Battlestar wouldn't be ending, Bushy would have been impeached and convicted long ago, and OmahaStar would have had that operation years ago to surgically remove that bat'leth from his ass.)

No, what I *am* saying is, If you want it (TAS) to be canon (i.e. part of your own personal world where "STAR TREK" is, encompasses, and consists of whatever you want it to in order to make it most pleasureable and exciting and awesome and good for your own personal tastes), then it is. (Its canon in your own personal perspective).

I still fail to see why what other fans -- particularly other fans I've never met -- have to insist, have to demand and proclaim -- that it is not and should not be canon for me simply because they do not consider it so.

Lighten up. Enjoy the show. Or don't. Whatever makes "TREK" work for you. Just don't try to dictate to me what I can or can't consider part of the story simply because you think you know more about it.

 

[AxelFoley]

I brought it up because it was an example of how I thought it sucked that a company will tell us what is and is not canon.

It may suck ... but it's their right.

Never denied that.

 

[Michael]

I have yet to hear, read, or find any logical explanation that would preclude TAS, for my own personal perspective as a fan, from being considered canon, so I generally, by default, consider it so. That, and the fact that fandom creating silly, hardline, blanket rules about what "is" canon and what "isn't" strike me as ridiculous.

If you want it to be canon, it is.

Now, before all the canon police and other nerds go racing to copy the dictionary.com definitions for a silly idiot like me, let me explain.

When I say "If you want it to be canon, it is.", I am not saying that just because you wish it so that it is so. (If that were the case, Battlestar wouldn't be ending, Bushy would have been impeached and convicted long ago, and OmahaStar would have had that operation years ago to surgically remove that bat'leth from his ass.)

No, what I *am* saying is, If you want it (TAS) [/i]to be canon[/i] (i.e. part of your own personal world where "STAR TREK" is, encompasses, and consists of whatever you want it to in order to make it most pleasureable and exciting and awesome and good for your own personal tastes), then it is. (Its canon in your own personal perspective).

I still fail to see why what other fans -- particularly other fans I've never met -- have to insist, have to demand and proclaim -- that it is not and should not be canon for me simply because they do not consider it so.

Lighten up. Enjoy the show. Or don't. Whatever makes "TREK" work for you. Just don't try to dictate to me what I can or can't consider part of the story simply because you think you know more about it.

Amen. Spread the word, brother.

 

[JM1776]

No, what I *am* saying is, If you want it (TAS) to be canon (i.e. part of your own personal world where "STAR TREK" is, encompasses, and consists of whatever you want it to in order to make it most pleasureable and exciting and awesome and good for your own personal tastes), then it is. (Its canon in your own personal perspective).

[Sighs.]

What you've described is not canon, but rather personal continuity.

If you wish to use the word "canon" in the privacy of your own mind, well ... no one's gonna stop you. Between your ears, ghost can mean chicken and bread Beelzebub. But out here where people communicate with each other, agreement on the meaning of terms is important ... "canon" has a distinct definition in this context ... and that ain't it.