Flip-Floping on TAS Anyone?

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

The Terratin Incident provides an answer to that, perhaps.

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Xenylon

It's natural - maybe the "processing" of the algae involves cloning and printing.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

In all of TAS, the only silly bit that struck me as being outside the TOS silly-range was Giant Clone Spock having a Giant Starfleet Uniform — seemingly cloned right along with him.

It's up there on the silly list, for sure.

A little further down on the silly list is Spock's Starfleet uniform under his period-appropriate clothing in "Yesteryear". That actually took some effort to accomplish, so recycling key drawings cannot explain it.

I wonder if there was some trope being used concerning recognizing who the character is, when one or more elements of their appearance have changed? That was Spock in disguise in "Yesteryear," so maybe the judgment was that that had to be shown explicitly somehow, and that motivated having parts of his Starfleet uniform peek out, for the benefit of the audience.

In the case of "The Infinite Vulcan", it's a giant Spock, so maybe the judgment was that they had to establish that it really was Spock, so in stays the uniform too. But, yes, it really was ultra-silly.

 

[Christopher]

I have the same basic opinion of TAS that I had when I dragged myself out of bed on Saturday mornings to watch it in first-run: it was generally good Star Trek, and there were plenty of TOS episodes that were at least as bad as the worst TAS episodes.

Yes. Pointing out the bad episodes of TAS isn't a meaningful argument, because every Trek series has its share of duds. It's a double standard to define one series by its worst episodes and another by its best.

And yes, TAS was done on an impossible schedule and budget, probably descending to "eights" and "twelves." And yet, I'm told that occasionally (I've heard this mainly in relation to "How Sharper Than a Serpent's Tooth"), the animators would do a scene in "ones" and "twos" because they felt strongly about it.

Not really. TAS pretty consistently animated on twos, I think; it's just they often didn't animate much beyond mouth movements, eyeblinks, console lights, etc. And they made an art form (literally) out of long, slow pans across gorgeously painted, really wide still images of landscapes or interiors, taking up a lot of screen time without any animation needed.

Also, of course, they saved a lot of time with their stock system, their efficient strategy of reusing the same stock poses and moves over and over so they didn't have to draw a lot of new cels. Note that no Enterprise character in TOS ever takes off their uniform, or alters it except to add things like force field belts or tricorder straps. Even in "Yesteryear," Spock still had his uniform on under his desert robes. That's presumably because they just used the same cels with extra layers added on top. (The equivalent still happens today, with 3D animation where you have to create new character models for wardrobe changes, so lower-budget shows tend to keep characters in the same outfits as much as possible. Hence in Star Wars Resistance, the female lead never once took off her flight suit even when lying on her bed in her quarters.)

 

[Ssosmcin]

Please do not post spoilers for this season of SNW. We’re nowhere near the 6 month point.

Thanks!

Yikes, sorry about that. And I knew better. Thanks for the catch.

Sorry everyone.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Then you should rewatch the live-action movie where they go to the center of the galaxy again (you mean galaxy, not universe), meet "God," and somehow survive a photon torpedo going off 50 feet behind them, which might as well be magic. TAS hardly has a monopoly on silly premises.

First, you are entirely right about the galaxy part, I misremembered. Second, I never said TAS had the only silly episodes in Star Trek, I'm just saying that it's sillier. It's not on the same level.

I rewatched TOS (first two seasons) and TAS recently as I was going through all the series, and TOS rarely got to the point where it took me out of an episode. I'll grant you it does have episodes like The Alternative Factor, but I was watching it carefully this time and a giant Spock never turned up, so I've got to stick to my clame that TAS is considerably more silly when it really goes for it. It's more like one of the comic books, unburdened by practical concerns of filming in the real world and the nagging feedback of a science advisor.

 

[Christopher]

Second, I never said TAS had the only silly episodes in Star Trek, I'm just saying that it's sillier. It's not on the same level.

And I think that's applying a double standard, as I said. For every silly thing in TAS, there's an equally silly thing in the live-action canon. And it's unfair to focus only on the bad things and not acknowledge the good things, like "Yesteryear," or the wildly creative alien designs and settings, or the fact that it used Sulu and Uhura better than TOS ever did, or the fact that it gave us the first female security officers in the franchise.

I'll grant you it does have episodes like The Alternative Factor, but I was watching it carefully this time and a giant Spock never turned up

I think the idea of a giant Spock clone is not remotely as stupid as the idea of matter and antimatter only reacting explosively if an entire person meets their antimatter double (rather than any given particle and antiparticle), or that such an explosion would destroy the entire universe. I mean, at least a giant Spock has precedent in the giant Apollo. It doesn't contradict anything in-universe. "The Alternative Factor"'s portrayal of antimatter as a universe-destroying menace contradicts what "The Naked Time" had already established about the Enterprise using antimatter as a fuel source, as well as everything since. And that's not even getting into how incoherent and self-contradictory the episode's plot is.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

For every silly thing in TAS, there's an equally silly thing in the live-action canon

I've still got to disagree about the 'equal' part, though it's hard to judge objectively. But even if it is true, TAS only has 22 episodes so that's a lot of concentrated silliness. It is, overall, a much sillier show, and for me this feels like a direction that TOS was attempting to steer away from. Alternative Factor wasn't deliberately meant to be fun nonsense, it's a failure in every department. Even the makeup department.

And it's unfair to focus only on the bad things and not acknowledge the good things, like "Yesteryear," or the wildly creative alien designs and settings, or the fact that it used Sulu and Uhura better than TOS ever did, or the fact that it gave us the first female security officers in the franchise.

I was focusing on that one point you made because it's the only one I disagree with. Lots of good things in TAS as well.

 

[Christopher]

Alternative Factor wasn't deliberately meant to be fun nonsense

Very little in TAS was meant to be either. It was intended to be an adult-oriented show written on an identical level to TOS, except for avoiding sex and violence (although it did have some pretty skimpy female costumes even by TOS standards). Yes, it had occasional comedy episodes like "More Tribbles, More Troubles" and "The Practical Joker," but TOS had comedy episodes too. The only animated Star Trek show that's deliberately intended to be "fun nonsense" is Lower Decks.

 

[Ssosmcin]

"The Alternative Factor"'s portrayal of antimatter as a universe-destroying menace contradicts what "The Naked Time" had already established about the Enterprise using antimatter as a fuel source,

Not to excuse The Alternative Factor, an episode I enjoy precisely because of the absurdly melodramatic manner in which all of that stuff is presented, but The Naked Time gave itself an out with the matter/anti-matter.

"You can't mix matter and anti-matter cold. We'd go up in the biggest explosion since..."

So yes, it can be used as a fuel source if the proper procedures are followed (whatever they are - I'm sure the "intermix fomula" has something to do with it), but they also acknowledge that without the priocedure, it blows up in large fashion.

Universe destroying? Nah. But enough to take out at least the Enterprise. Confining the damage to just the solar system would have made The Alternative Factor dramatic enough. But that episode did everything overly large.

 

[Dar70]

I can't remember what channel I saw TAS when I was little but I suspect it was Nickelodeon (late 80's). I don't remember getting impressed by it. In fact in my child mind I considered it an inferior cartoon but an odd one.

Many many years later I re-watched it on Netflix. Memory refreshed but unwavering from childhood opinion.

Two years ago watched it on Paramount+ ... and my opinion switched over to considering it now a good show. However with a children's content focus that I hadn't accepted eariler.

What happened? It's not as though it has a soft spot in my love of nostalgia. Anyone else have their opinion of this show flip-flop with them?

When I was a kid and first discovered TOS i had zero clue there was an animated series. I first start watching TOS when I was probably 5 years old. Then when I was a little older TAS was shown on a public station during the summertime. I thought it was really cool but never really got to see every episode. I finally have watched all episodes in my old age... ...they are fun. Its like watching a live action comic book from the 70's ...

 

[Christopher]

When I was a kid and first discovered TOS i had zero clue there was an animated series. I first start watching TOS when I was probably 5 years old.

I also discovered TOS when I was 5 years old, but that was early 1974 during TAS's first run. I still remember the Saturday morning, probably just weeks after I discovered TOS, when my mother came out while I was playing in the backyard and told me there was a Star Trek cartoon on TV right then. So I came to think of Star Trek as a single show that was sometimes live-action on weeknights and sometimes a cartoon on Saturday mornings.

 

[Dar70]

I also discovered TOS when I was 5 years old, but that was early 1974 during TAS's first run. I still remember the Saturday morning, probably just weeks after I discovered TOS, when my mother came out while I was playing in the backyard and told me there was a Star Trek cartoon on TV right then. So I came to think of Star Trek as a single show that was sometimes live-action on weeknights and sometimes a cartoon on Saturday mornings.

Haha..nice.

 

[BillJ]

In all honesty, I think TAS has aged better than TNG.

 

[Tallguy]

I suppose I could say that I flip flopped. But it happened a LONG time ago and I've been a staunch TAS apologist for a long while.

I cooled on it a bit when it showed up on Nick in the 80's. I admit it was a bit cheaper than I remembered it. But now I ask: "Compared to what?" This was not bargain basement animation. If you weren't doing feature animation (and who was in the States who wasn't The Mouse?) then in the USA at least this was what animation was. And in more respects than not the show design was terrific.

But then as I got older I realized how essentially Star Trek TAS is. And if you dip into 70's and 80's fan work as well as licensed material TAS is everywhere!

It's Star Trek. I don't mean that like "I just love everything Star Trek." I don't. I don't even love everything TOS! I mean "This IS Star Trek". There is clear through line from TOS to TAS. Writers, cast (!), stories.

One complaint that I had was initially "Too many sequels". And this is actually not true. It's just that the ones that there are are big ones. But Yesteryear isn't as much a sequel to City on the Edge of Forever as much as it "just" uses the Guardian. And More Tribbles is nothing like The Trouble with Tribbles other than the tribbles are still the MacGuffin and it has Cyrano Jones in a far more passive role than the last time. It's the biggest space battle Star Trek ever had until The Wrath of Khan!

As for "It's Star Trek for kiddies": Is it? There is the "The crew gets SMALL!" which has a kind of kid's show feel. But it's certainly not the first sci-fi to tackle such an idea. The dumbest plot in TAS was "There's a universe where everything is backwards." But later Trek would at least match this dumbness.

TAS is Star Trek. Or, to quote a kind of wise man's (wise guy's) signature? "Of COURSE TAS is canon!"

 

[Christopher]

I cooled on it a bit when it showed up on Nick in the 80's. I admit it was a bit cheaper than I remembered it. But now I ask: "Compared to what?" This was not bargain basement animation. If you weren't doing feature animation (and who was in the States who wasn't The Mouse?) then in the USA at least this was what animation was.

What often gets me is how forgiving American audiences are about anime doing the exact same limited-animation tricks that they criticize Filmation for, like static poses with only the mouth and eyes moving, frequent reuse of stock animation, long cutaways to scenery so moving mouths don't have to be animated, etc.

Still, I think it's fair to say that Filmation operated on a somewhat tighter budget than some of its competitors. I see Lou Scheimer as kind of the animation version of Roger Corman -- a low-budget producer who cultivated artists who went on to be greats later on.

One complaint that I had was initially "Too many sequels". And this is actually not true. It's just that the ones that there are are big ones. But Yesteryear isn't as much a sequel to City on the Edge of Forever as much as it "just" uses the Guardian.

It's arguably more of a "Journey to Babel" prequel than a "City" sequel.

And More Tribbles is nothing like The Trouble with Tribbles other than the tribbles are still the MacGuffin and it has Cyrano Jones in a far more passive role than the last time.

Funny, I'd say it's far too much like "The Trouble with Tribbles." The setup is exactly the same, the Enterprise encountering Koloth, Jones, and tribbles while escorting a triticale variant to Sherman's Planet, which is preposterously coincidental. As I mentioned, I prefer a sequel like "Once Upon a Planet," which doesn't just rehash the original setup but tells a markedly different story that expands meaningfully on the original.

As for "It's Star Trek for kiddies": Is it? There is the "The crew gets SMALL!" which has a kind of kid's show feel. But it's certainly not the first sci-fi to tackle such an idea.

There's no equivalence between silliness and childishness. There's tons of nonsense in supposedly "adult" sci-fi, and some of the smartest shows I've ever seen are kids' shows.

Besides, TOS had Flint shrink the entire Enterprise into a tabletop model, and DS9 did "One Little Ship." And plenty of other stories have done miniaturization -- The Incredible Shrinking Man, Fantastic Voyage, Land of the Giants, etc. The motivation isn't to aim at children specifically, but to explore an interesting visual and a distinctive adventure dynamic.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

"The crew gets SMALL!"

Hmm. Why am I suddenly thinking of an old Steve Martin bit?

One night I got really small, and climbed inside a vacuum cleaner. Then the drug wore off. I retained the shape of a vacuum cleaner for two weeks.

 

[SatrianiRules]

TAS was never really aimed at children, aside from toning down the sex and violence. It was promoted at the time as the first Saturday morning show made for adults (though there had been previous prime-time animated shows aimed at adult viewers, notably The Flintstones and The Jetsons). Compared to its contemporary Saturday morning shows, it was much less child-oriented; it didn't have cute animal mascots or have the characters perform songs at the end about the moral of the week. It had some fanciful concepts, but no more so than the live-action series did. A giant Spock clone is no more absurd than a giant Apollo. The crew shrinking is no more absurd than Kirk being accelerated to hyperspeed.

Basically, TAS was made with the goal of being simply a continuation of TOS, written on the same level but with fewer budgetary restrictions on depicting alien worlds and creatures. And it pretty much succeeded. It had its share of weak or mediocre episodes, but so does every Trek series, and it produced some classics such as "Yesteryear" and "Once Upon a Planet" (which I think is actually a better episode than "Shore Leave," because it actually has real stakes and the problem is solved by the main characters rather than a deus ex machina guest star).

I remember reading an article discussing TAS reviews from the era that also indicated that the show was well written but might be too cerebral for children....

 

[F. King Daniel]

TAS was golden then (well... 1990's reruns in my world) and it's golden now.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

It's a double standard to define one series by its worst episodes and another by its best.

Generally agreed, but for me the worst episodes of TOS are still about as good as the best episodes of some other shows.*

The Alternative Factor

Were you the person who suggested that maybe this could be interpreted as a prequel to "Mirror, Mirror," and that, in this fan interpretation the anti-matter destruction fear is there just to keep the Mirror-universe and original-universe counterparts from ever meeting as a rule? (A rule that the novels and DS9 decidedly broke).

So I came to think of Star Trek as a single show that was sometimes live-action on weeknights and sometimes a cartoon on Saturday mornings.

I like that mindset because it helps justify the stardate order rewatch I did that mixed TAS into the TOS seasons.

*My username probably indicates the degree to which I really like TAS. I think that they continued TOS storytelling as best they could with animation at the time.

 

[Christopher]

Were you the person who suggested that maybe this could be interpreted as a prequel to "Mirror, Mirror," and that, in this fan interpretation the anti-matter destruction fear is there just to keep the Mirror-universe and original-universe counterparts from ever meeting as a rule? (A rule that the novels and DS9 decidedly broke).

That was absolutely not me.