Is Capt. Robert April Canon?

[Captain X]

It's not up to me to provide a link if you missed it being discussed in TrekToday.

Basically what happened is that they held a poll on the official website as to whether TAS should be declared canon again, and a lot of pwoplw said that it should, so CBS did, then released a shiny new DVD set of TAS.

 

[Sector 7]

CBS declared TAS canon prior to releasing the DVD set for it.

Link?

"Canon" has nothing to do with whether an element makes sense or is consistent with other elements of the property, BTW. Two "canon" facts can contradict one another, and frequently do. In no sense is "canon" synonymous with "consistent."

It's not up to me to provide a link if you missed it being discussed in TrekToday.

Basically what happened is that they held a poll on the official website as to whether TAS should be declared canon again, and a lot of pwoplw said that it should, so CBS did, then released a shiny new DVD set of TAS.

When stating something as fact, it is fair to ask for a link. You are not obliged to provide it, but it is fair to ask someone for more information or a resource. Not everyone has the time nor inclination to read every possible thing written on a subject.

I have often asked someone for a link -or to be pointed to the correct resource- so that I can find out more about a referenced item. They don't have to provide it, but most will do so to help a fellow Trekker learn more.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's not up to me to provide a link if you missed it being discussed in TrekToday.

Basically what happened is that they held a poll on the official website as to whether TAS should be declared canon again, and a lot of pwoplw said that it should, so CBS did, then released a shiny new DVD set of TAS.

When stating something as fact, it is fair to ask for a link. You are not obliged to provide it, but it is fair to ask someone for more information or a resource. Not everyone has the time nor inclination to read every possible thing written on a subject.

Exactly so. He's making an assertion here that needs to be backed up. I'll allow that the assertion is fact when I see some evidence of it, not before - because I think he's wrong, and that is why he can't provide a link.

Saying "I don't have to" is essentially his concession that he has no evidence for his assertion.

On the other hand, I can provide a link to the www.startrek.com article about TAS, the release of the DVD set and "canon:"

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/editorials/article/17178.html

You will notice that while it concludes by mentioning that in a poll conducted on the official site two thirds of the respondents favored including TAS as "canon" there is no mention of any acknowledgment by the studio that the poll has affected the status of the animated series or that the studio has for any reason "declared it canon."

So, that claim is now debunked. Captain Arrrgh! is wrong.

 

[RandyS]

Then there's the classic photo of Gene wearing a command tunic which was credited as "Captain Robert April" as a gag amongst the production folk.

Are you certain that wasn't a Photoshop job executed by Michael Okuda for The Star Trek Encyclopedia?

TGT

That's exactly what it is. That is actually a publicity photo of Shatner for "Where No Man Has Gone Before" with Roddenberry's head superimposed over Shatner's.

 

[TigerOfDarkness]

It's not up to me to provide a link if you missed it being discussed in TrekToday.

Basically what happened is that they held a poll on the official website as to whether TAS should be declared canon again, and a lot of pwoplw said that it should, so CBS did, then released a shiny new DVD set of TAS.

When stating something as fact, it is fair to ask for a link. You are not obliged to provide it, but it is fair to ask someone for more information or a resource. Not everyone has the time nor inclination to read every possible thing written on a subject.

Exactly so. He's making an assertion here that needs to be backed up. I'll allow that the assertion is fact when I see some evidence of it, not before - because I think he's wrong, and that is why he can't provide a link.

Saying "I don't have to" is essentially his concession that he has no evidence for his assertion.

On the other hand, I can provide a link to the www.startrek.com article about TAS, the release of the DVD set and "canon:"

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/editorials/article/17178.html

You will notice that while it concludes by mentioning that in a poll conducted on the official site two thirds of the respondents favored including TAS as "canon" there is no mention of any acknowledgment by the studio that the poll has affected the status of the animated series or that the studio has for any reason "declared it canon."

So, that claim is now debunked. Captain Arrrgh! is wrong.

In the insert for the DVD set (UK version) there is a couple of paragraphs entitled "Animated Trek: Real Or Not?", which ends with:
"whether the Animated Series can be accepted as canon is still an issue which is fiercely debated in the Star Trek fandom.", so it seems Starship Polaris is indeed correct.

 

[blockaderunner]

In a word: Who?

In two words: Who cares?

 

[The Wormhole]

We can sit around and discuss whether TAS is canon all we like, but we're missing the issue. The issue is is Captain Robert April canon, and yes he is.

After all, Captain April is mentioned in The Star Trek Encyclopedia and The Star Trek Chronology. These books only represent canon material. Therefore, since Robert April is in these books, he is by extension canon.

 

[Captain X]

It's not up to me to provide a link if you missed it being discussed in TrekToday.

Basically what happened is that they held a poll on the official website as to whether TAS should be declared canon again, and a lot of pwoplw said that it should, so CBS did, then released a shiny new DVD set of TAS.

When stating something as fact, it is fair to ask for a link. You are not obliged to provide it, but it is fair to ask someone for more information or a resource. Not everyone has the time nor inclination to read every possible thing written on a subject.

Exactly so. He's making an assertion here that needs to be backed up. I'll allow that the assertion is fact when I see some evidence of it, not before - because I think he's wrong, and that is why he can't provide a link.

Saying "I don't have to" is essentially his concession that he has no evidence for his assertion.

On the other hand, I can provide a link to the www.startrek.com article about TAS, the release of the DVD set and "canon:"

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/editorials/article/17178.html

You will notice that while it concludes by mentioning that in a poll conducted on the official site two thirds of the respondents favored including TAS as "canon" there is no mention of any acknowledgment by the studio that the poll has affected the status of the animated series or that the studio has for any reason "declared it canon."

So, that claim is now debunked. Captain Arrrgh! is wrong.

It was more a matter of not having enough time this morning than anything. College would be great if it wasn't for all those pesky classes... I attempted to search through the TrekToday headlines and didn't see the article I remembered reading, but it's in there somewhere - there was this big song and dance among the fans about it from both sides as far as supporting it or thinking it was a stupid move by CBS.

In any case, since you seem to want to handle this like a political debate, and I have an odd sense of humor:

Enjoy.

 

[I am not Spock]

^Yes. Anything which is produced, and aired, whether it contradicts something else or not, is part of the 'Star Trek canon'.

Continuity is something totally different.

Look at 'Casino Royale'. It ignores all 20 previous Bond films and fashions it's own take on the Bond universe, yet is treated as the 21st Bond film, not the first in a new series.

I don't like ALL of Shakespeare's plays. Titus Andronicus isn't his best work, but it's still part of the Shakespearean canon.

As for Trek, there are many inconsistencies. TOS contradicted itself all the time. TNG contradicted itself and TOS. But that's an issue of continuity within the universe, not canonicity.

 

[cultcross]

^ Correct. The constituents of a canon are not dependent on them not being contradictory. The argument becomes not "Is Robert April canonical?" but rather "Does Robert April fit into continuity?"

Oh and (not aimed at you IamNS) someone or something cannot 'be canon'. Canon is a noun, not an adjective.

 

[I am not Spock]

I hope the new film will finally lay the issue of April to rest, one way or the other.

 

[Timo]

Look at 'Casino Royale'. It ignores all 20 previous Bond films and fashions it's own take on the Bond universe, yet is treated as the 21st Bond film, not the first in a new series.

Then again, Casino Royale doesn't really contradict the Bond universe continuity, even if it ignores it.

That is, all the twenty-something "official" films could be argued to depict one and the same universe - just with six different guys serving their Majesty under the guise of "Agent 007, cover name James Bond". At some point, the one who looks like Sean Connery retires, takes an extended leave or dies, and the guy who looks like Roger Moore is drafted to replace him.

Entry requirements are strict, of course, and Scotsmen appear to be unfairly favored. And of course, you have to accept the usual cover history and so forth. But the perks of the job are excellent, too: you automatically become a RN Commander! It's optional to have a heavy drinking habit and a dead wife.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[I am not Spock]

You know, that's the best goddamn rationalisation of the Bond universe I've ever read, Timo. Makes more sense than my theory. (Bond is a Time Lord from Dr Who, who gets inexplicably younger with new incarnation). Seriously, if the guy was the same bloke throughout the whole series, he'd be in his 70s by now! Lol.

 

[cultcross]

I hope the new film will finally lay the issue of April to rest, one way or the other.

It never will though, this film will only create issues with the canon among fans. The side who got their opinion vindicated will trumpet the 'canon answer', those who don't will argue XI isn't part of the original canon and so appearance or otherwise of anything doesn't have bearing on the original material.

We're Trek fans. Nothing is ever laid to rest

 

[cultcross]

Look at 'Casino Royale'. It ignores all 20 previous Bond films and fashions it's own take on the Bond universe, yet is treated as the 21st Bond film, not the first in a new series.

Then again, Casino Royale doesn't really contradict the Bond universe continuity, even if it ignores it.

That is, all the twenty-something "official" films could be argued to depict one and the same universe - just with six different guys serving their Majesty under the guise of "Agent 007, cover name James Bond". At some point, the one who looks like Sean Connery retires, takes an extended leave or dies, and the guy who looks like Roger Moore is drafted to replace him.

Entry requirements are strict, of course, and Scotsmen appear to be unfairly favored. And of course, you have to accept the usual cover history and so forth. But the perks of the job are excellent, too: you automatically become a RN Commander! It's optional to have a heavy drinking habit and a dead wife.

Timo Saloniemi

That's really quite brilliant. It even explains away 'M' - After Pierce-Brosnan-lookalike 'James Bond' dies, M (Judi Dench) looks for a replacement top agent and settles on someone with a striking resemblance to Daniel Craig.

 

[Timo]

...Of course, this assumes that "Moneypenny" is a codename or nickname, too, just like James Bond, M and Q. But that's not a giant leap of faith, I guess.

Also, the Brosnan-lookalike had a bitter divorce behind him, while the Moore lookalike and the Lazenby lookalike apparently lost wives to the grim reaper; the back stories don't mesh psychologically all that well if these are to be the same person.

One may of course say that in his first appearance, the Moore guy is out to avenge the death of the wife of the Lazenby guy. But that's by no means a contradiction: 007 might well be simply tasked with hunting down Blofeld for good, avenging the previous 007 (who apparently couldn't take it and jumped off a cliff after the end credits rolled) plus this other guy's wife (nothing personal there) and, most importantly, ending the threat to the Crown from this villain who had already escaped the clutches of two previous 007s.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Look at 'Casino Royale'. It ignores all 20 previous Bond films and fashions it's own take on the Bond universe, yet is treated as the 21st Bond film, not the first in a new series.

All new Bonds do the same thing. CR is no more, or less, a reboot than any other new Bond (even if it has the same M).

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

^Yes. Anything which is produced, and aired, whether it contradicts something else or not, is part of the 'Star Trek canon'.

Continuity is something totally different.

Exactly so.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It was more a matter of not having enough time this morning than anything. College would be great if it wasn't for all those pesky classes... I attempted to search through the TrekToday headlines and didn't see the article I remembered reading...

That's not surprising. As the www.startrek.com article makes clear, TAS has never been declared "canon" by the studio. If this hypothetical TrekToday article says otherwise, it's a misstatement.

And if you don't like my attitude, drop the snotty "It's not my job..." dodge for not being able to support your position.

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

My biggest problem with TAS being canon has to do with things that don't jive with the later series, like the presence of a holodeck and the invisible force-field spacesuits.

We saw holodecks in the time of Enterprise ("Unexpected") so there's no reason there wouldn't be something similar in the TAS timeframe. We also saw personal force fields on many of the later shows (e.g., VOY "State of Flux"). So I don't see how either of these would be a deal-breaker when it comes to the canonicity of TAS.