Is Capt. Robert April Canon?

[Iamnotspock]

The fact is, you gotta believe what you want is canon,

Except that's not canon, that's personal continuity.
We have a definition of canon, however much people want to ignore it. All live action films and TV series are canonical as they appeared on screen. Everything else, be it animated, books, comics, RPGs, etc, is not.

What you want to have as your personal view of the "universe" is entirely up to you. But it has no more baring on the canon of Trek than saying you don't accept the book of Jonah would have on the books of the accepted canonical Bible.

Okay, so the episode of the cartoon when Spock goes back and visits himself is as child is, but Robert April is not. Hmm. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I'm just saying why believe one and not the other.

As far as I'm aware, neither of them are. Yesteryear is a popular episode among fans and so many would like to believe that it happened, and so they count it in their personal continuity, but it was never officially recognised as canon after TAS was thrown out of continuity. I'm unaware of Paramount's policy on canon having changed in recent years, or if CBS has a different take on the subject.

I happen to think that it's all a bit silly. I believe that Gene Roddenberry retroactively "decanonised" TAS because he was unhappy with the way it had turned out. Various writers have included subtle references to it in live-action episodes, such as the name of Kor's ship, and it was the first place to establish Kirk's middle name as Tiberius. So, information contained within the animated episodes is not without merit, but unless CBS indicates their position on the subject we just don't know.

I don't see that happening any time soon, though. It's just one of those things that only we fans care enough about to get worked up over.

 

[mythme]

As a continuation to the above post:

Since Gene was the one to "decannonize" TAS, the also wrote "The Making of Star Trek" where he noted that the Enterprise was a ship of "some history" and that its previous captains were Pike (which no one had seen at the time) and April. If Roddenberry is to be considered the final word on what is canon, then I would suspect that April is, although he was never "officially" seen.

However, with references to TAS in DS9 and Enterprise especially, TAS has been "forced" into canon. I see nothing in the series which contradicts anything to any great degree. And of course as the years after Gene's death go by, his viewpoint become more and more of a moot point. TAS has become a way to fill in the missing 2 year gap in the "five year mission" of TOS.

Besides someone HAD to be the captain of the Enterprise since Gene stated that the Enterprise was 20 years old by the time of WNMHGB. If Pike had captained the ship for two tours of duty (which "the Menagerie" suggests), that would leave A LOT of open space for someone else to be her captain, since its has been pretty well established that Kirk took command in 2264 and Spock came aboard by thirteen years before that in 2251 (when events in "The Cage" take place).

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

So it was Gene's idea that TAS be nullified? I hate to sound heartless, but he's been dead for some time now. Why hasn't that been overridden by now?

And much as a lot of people would like to believe otherwise, ST V is still canon, even though Gene (AFAIK) decided it wasn't.

 

[Angel4576]

Roddenberry's interpretation of what consistuted canon and non-canon was revisionist and fluid to say the least. There are, by his own admission, parts of the movies that he didn't really believe to be canon, even though they've been seen on screen. Even the main website's position on the subject is along the lines of the canonicity being fluid and subject to change.

To further muddy the waters, weren't the Jeri Taylor Voyager novels Mosaic and Pathways written as canon? They were supposed to be used as guides for future writers on the show as to Janeway's background.

 

[ryan123450]

So it was Gene's idea that TAS be nullified? I hate to sound heartless, but he's been dead for some time now. Why hasn't that been overridden by now?

It has.

And much as a lot of people would like to believe otherwise, ST V is still canon, even though Gene (AFAIK) decided it wasn't.

Exactly, anyone who says TAS or STV or STVI or any other piece of aired Trek is "not-canon" doesn't know what they're talking about.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

According to TPTB TAS is not part of canon so Capt. April is not canon.

Exactly - that's all there is to the question of canonicity. Period, full stop.

Whether April will become part of canon as the first captain of the Enterprise or be eliminated as a possibility because Pike is shown to be the first captain will likely be settled by Abrams' movie.

 

[number6]

Captain April is canon, unless the movie says he isn't.

 

[Captain X]

CBS declared TAS canon prior to releasing the DVD set for it. I'm not saying I agree, but that's what happened.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

CBS declared TAS canon prior to releasing the DVD set for it. I'm not saying I agree, but that's what happened.

I *do* agree.

I mean, I'm hardly a fan of TAS, but it's still an 'on-screen' item. You can't pick and choose - either all screened items (shows and films) are canon, or none are. There is no in between. If you start nit-picking which shows are canon and which aren't, the very definition of the term becomes meaningless.

 

[Sector 7]

"To canonize or not to canonize. That is the question."
TAS was created, aired and blessed by TPTB at that point in time. More importantly, I watched it on television as a teen, therefore it is canon. I have spoken.
The next poster may now have the conch.

 

[I am not Spock]

I hope Trek XI at least mentions April by name, so we can finally settle this 'Is he canon?' debate.

 

[I am not Spock]

If Gene said TAS was apocryphal, then STV and STVI are too. Clearly, that's ridiculous. I think TAS' noncanoncity should be decanonised! It's a televised ST show, right? Doesn't it qualify?

 

[Skywalker]

If Gene said TAS was apocryphal, then STV and STVI are too. Clearly, that's ridiculous. I think TAS' noncanoncity should be decanonised! It's a televised ST show, right? Doesn't it qualify?

It has been un-decanonized. If Trek did everything Roddenberry said, it would have died a lot sooner than five years ago.

 

[I am not Spock]

Yeah, if Gene had kept control of Trek, we'd probably get a series of films like TMP, instead of like TWOK. I think some of Roddenbery's ideas were best kept OUT of Trek, for its own good.

 

[Captain X]

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.

 

[Saga]

not to mention the color pink becoming a galaxy wide primary color.

 

[Timo]

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

Wouldn't that be a problem with the later series being canon, really?

I mean, it's pretty silly for holodecks to be a new thing in "Encounter at Farpoint" when they were already in existence in "The Practical Joker" (which was also the better episode). What were the writers thinking? It's not just that TNG would start out by contradicting TAS, it's that holographic entertainment shouldn't be that amazing a thing in this fictional 24th century when much more marvelous things were part and parcel of the fictional 23rd century already, in TAS and TOS alike. In the early 1980s, the writers should actually have been thinking that such technology would be lurking just around the corner, and would be old news by the 22nd century already...

Of course, the same goes for the existence of Data.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Therin of Andor]

What do you mean by this? to my knowledge no episode of TAS has ever been declared part of the canon more or less than any other.

When ST:TMP was being made, Gene Roddenberry had no qualms about the Enterprise bridge retaining the second bridge turboshaft entrance which was added for TAS. He happily incorporated a "rec deck" into TMP and a holodeck into TNG.

The topic of "What is canon?" came about as a result of Gene Roddenberry (and Richard Arnold) attending ST conventions in the 80s and having fans question certain aspects of the ST movies and Season One TNG by quoting passages from licensed ST novels, or the Franz Joseph "ST Technical Manual", and Richard arnold started quoting the rules of what made up "the Star Trek canon", and it became only as-aired live-action episodes and movies. The licensed tie-ins were asked to stop referencing each other, and to also stop referencing TAS. (It wasn't helped by the fact that RA really didn't like TAS much, or that GR was trying to distance himself from DC Fontana and David Gerrold, who were suing GR over aspects of TNG.)

When the Okudas were preparing the first "ST Encyclopedia" and "ST Chronology" editions, they specifically asked Gene Roddenberry if he approved them adding information about Spock's home city, ShiKahr (accidentally misspelt "ShirKahr"), the look of a sehlat, and young Spock's turbulent upbringing on Vulcan (ie. being teased, and the kahs-wan test), and Amanda's surname, all established in "Yesteryear", esp. since the references were the work of DC Fontana, who'd already helped shape Spock's backstory in TOS. He said yes, even though, obeying Richard Arnold's 1989 memo from the ST Office, the rest of TAS wasn't to be referenced.

The other important reason for separating TAS at the time: Filmation was being wound down in 1989, and the rights to the entire Filmation back catalogue was in a state of flux. Paramount didn't necessarily own the rights to TAS; it had been co-produced by Norway Corp and Filmation for NBC, with Paramount only handing the distribution in syndicated repeat.

However, the Okudas did also add information on Captain Robert April, simply because he was already a part of GR's original ST premise, ie. the character that morphed into Captain Winter/Pike for "The Cage" and then Kirk in the second pilot. They even had Roddenberry's head placed on Pike's shoulders to create an image of April for the books.

The explanation of Roddenberry's approval of these elements of TAS into canon is in the Okuda books. But... esp. after after the Filmation rights were re-established, there was nothing stopping Ron Moore from referencing Kor's ship from TAS in DS9, or ST VI using the name "Tiberius".

The ban on TAS was really only aimed at the licenced tie-ins, and the memo was only effective from 1989 until GR's death in 1991 anyway. No one enforces the memo today, although no one has ever retracted it either. The novelization of TNG's "Unification" by Jeri Taylor actually references the Phylosians, so it was the first new book to break the ban.

 

[Captain X]

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

Wouldn't that be a problem with the later series being canon, really?

I mean, it's pretty silly for holodecks to be a new thing in "Encounter at Farpoint" when they were already in existence in "The Practical Joker" (which was also the better episode). What were the writers thinking? It's not just that TNG would start out by contradicting TAS, it's that holographic entertainment shouldn't be that amazing a thing in this fictional 24th century when much more marvelous things were part and parcel of the fictional 23rd century already, in TAS and TOS alike. In the early 1980s, the writers should actually have been thinking that such technology would be lurking just around the corner, and would be old news by the 22nd century already...

Of course, the same goes for the existence of Data.

Timo Saloniemi

At the time they wrote TNG, GR had already declared TAS not canon, and he even told the writers not to worry too much if they contradicted something from TOS.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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."