Is TAS considered canon, and a close "cousin" to TOS?

[Christopher]

Ahh, yes, we all remember how readily the world's polluters stopped polluting when someone pointed out that they were polluting. Wasn't that swell how easy it was? And how the pollution that was already there just went away once people pointed it out? Good times...

And how can a belt of pollution approach at warp 6?

 

[Therin of Andor]

^Intended, presumed, same thing. If it's not explicitly stated onscreen, it's apocrypha.

Sure, but so are most of the ST:TMP aliens. Only difference, they were named on sketches and a press release.

What about this bit's canonical status?

No more canonical that the Scotty & Kirk transporter accident TV commercial, Nimoy appearing as Spock on "The Carol Burnett Show", or Michael Dorn cameoing as Worf on "Webster".

 

[Captain Robert April]

I asked Susan Sackett about this whole TAS canon matter, while giving her the general rundown of the "it was for legal reasons" theory. She said that while Gene still liked TAS, he didn't consider it as "established canon," so that puts a dent in things (it also means that Richard Arnold was at least half right ). He also never mentioned anything to her about any legal reasons.

Now, while I'm not ready to give up the notion that the legal issues had a hand in things, I think we may be dealing with one of GR's "allow me the consistency of my inconsistencies" moments. And let's be honest, kids, he didn't necessarily feel constrained by what TOS established, so TAS being ignored shouldn't be all that surprising.

Whatever, it's in now and it's staying.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I think we may be dealing with one of GR's "allow me the consistency of my inconsistencies" moments.

The other reason, without a doubt, was the lawsuit by Gerrold & Fontana re co-creatorship of TNG. Since it's a court decision that neither side can discuss the settlement, but that Gerrold & Fontana seemingly received something, we'll never know the actual outcome. GR's lawyer of the day, who was extremely anti-Gerrold, would have been doing everything he could to weaken Gerrold & Fontana's case that they had been involved in many of ST's successes between TOS and TNG, and both were very prominent in the success of TAS.

Also, I well remember the original announcement of Pocket's intention to have the kzinti feature in "The Captains' Honor". All subsequent announcements called the felinoid race "the M'dok", but this manuscript would have been one scrutineered by Richard Arnold, at about the same time Peter David was having so much fun with Len Wein's addition of Arex and M'Ress to the DC comic, and RA was having his infamous fued with PAD.

However, Bjo's two professionally published Concordance editions have featured TAS, so I wouldn't be expecting her to strip out all those references on the whim of a now-extinct "Star Trek Office" memo to the official licensees issued in 1989.

he didn't consider it as "established canon," so that puts a dent in things (it also means that Richard Arnold was at least half right ).

That's what RA has always maintained. His quote in DC Comics' TOS Series II, #1, and repeated live at conventions in 1989 and the early 90s, goes something like, "the animated episodes do not cross over with the movies". The speculation over legal reasons (Filmation's sale and Niven's attempt to license "Ringworld", both in 1989) was mine.

 

[Lieut. Arex]

Ahh, yes, we all remember how readily the world's polluters stopped polluting when someone pointed out that they were polluting. Wasn't that swell how easy it was? And how the pollution that was already there just went away once people pointed it out? Good times...

And how can a belt of pollution approach at warp 6?

Well, if...

It could be because...

Possibly a..., uh

Let me get back to you on that one.

What about this bit's canonical status?

No more canonical that the Scotty & Kirk transporter accident TV commercial, Nimoy appearing as Spock on "The Carol Burnett Show", or Michael Dorn cameoing as Worf on "Webster".

So completely then. Excellent.

 

[Captain Robert April]

A follow-up from the Sackett front: I asked if maybe Gene might've changed his mind by now regarding TAS' status, she thinks probably not, "it wasn't that important to him."

Although I'm thinking this was a case of GR saying, "Nah, let's leave that out," for whatever reason, and RA going forth, proclaiming, "SO SHALL IT BE WRITTEN, SO SHALL IT BE DONE!!"

Regarding Gerrold and Fontana, are you sure it was a full-blown lawsuit and not just a very contentious Writer's Guild grievance filing? Because Susan doesn't remember anything about David and Dorothy actually suing Gene.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Regarding Gerrold and Fontana, are you sure it was a full-blown lawsuit and not just a very contentious Writer's Guild grievance filing? Because Susan doesn't remember anything about David and Dorothy actually suing Gene.

It's been described in various places as "a lawsuit" (eg. on Steve Roby's page on "Blood and Fire" at http://www.well.com/~sjroby/lcars/starwolf/index.html ), lawyers were involved, and there was definitely an "out of court settlement", so if the term "sue" is inappropriate here... you have my apologies. I thought Americans waved that term around a lot and it seems a generic term for taking someone to task with legal help.

Had the Writers' Guild not settled the matter I'm sure actual suing was next on the agenda. But, as I said, no one involved can discuss the settlement anyway.

In any case, won't the wording be Bjo's - and you won't have to be concerned as Bjo delicately describes, in her own inimitable style, the balance she obviously maintained well over many decades between her close friendships with Gene, DC, David, Susan, Majel and Richard?

 

[Captain Robert April]

The behind-the-scenes legal wrangling, especially the infighting, wouldn't make it in any case, since that would downgrade the Concordance to "just another fanzine," albeit a really big one. I just want to know as much info as possible so we can figure out how to proceed.

As it stands, I think there should be a mention that GR actually did consider TAS, at best, nonbinding at the time of TNG's development, but the actions of the studio since then have, in effect, restored it to full canonical status. Anything beyond that is just muckraking, however well intentioned.

 

[Freman]

I consider it canon.

And a little sidenote to fans of TAS, have you checked out the fan-made animated episodes put out by the Starship Farragut guys? If not, do so. It's like two missing episodes.

Thanks Freman!

Hey no problem, Kail. You guys all did a great job with those eps. I hope you do more sometime in the future. I would love to play a small voice part.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Upon further review and consultation with various parties, I have come to the following conclusion: GR's attitude towards TAS depended upon who he was talking to at a given moment and whether or not he was game for an argument, which isn't much different to how he felt about a lot of subjects.

My opinion is that the legal issues with Filmation effectively put TAS off limits, but rather than admit that he was legally barred from a portion of his creation, Roddenberry took the somewhat Machiavellian tack that he didn't consider it particularly binding anyway and would prefer that the licensees not make any reference to it, and to give himself an out, he only shared this stance with those who were duty bound to follow his orders, so that when things changed, i.e., Paramount and Filmation reaching an agreement over how much Paramount would have to shell out to get the rights to TAS, Gene could do a 180 at about warp six and the only people who would know something is up would be sworn to silence and have to go along like nothing ever changed.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

My opinion is that the legal issues with Filmation effectively put TAS off limits,

Filmation's bankruptcy in the late-80s would have put the Animated Series off-limits, yes. Even though Paramount owned the characters and such, the bankruptcy court would have viewed TAS as an asset of Filmation. Similar things have happened in the comic book industry; at about the same time as Filmation's bankruptcy, Comico filed for bankruptcy and that tied up Matt Wagner's Grendel (a creator-owned property) for several years until the bankruptcy resolved itself and Wagner could take the property to Dark Horse.

but rather than admit that he was legally barred from a portion of his creation, Roddenberry took the somewhat Machiavellian tack that he didn't consider it particularly binding anyway and would prefer that the licensees not make any reference to it,

That seems overly complicated. Yes, I can see that Roddenberry would be loathe to admit that Paramount didn't have access to all of the toys in the Star Trek chest, but I don't think he would see that as a reason to be cunning. Roddenberry tended only to be a dick when it got him something, and this Machiavellian plot you've proposed doesn't gain him anything.

I could see Roddenberry's stance toward TAS tied up in the WGA arbitration with Fontana over TNG's creator credits, though, as Fontana was the one who had been in the driving seat on TAS and Roddenberry hadn't been involved to any great degree.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Roddenberry also had a tendency to say whatever was necessary to avoid conflicts when there was nothing to gain. Going public over the legal entanglements surrounding TAS gets him nothing (in fact, something like that might actually hurt negotiations), but since he already wanted TNG to stand on its own, and he was also willing to ignore facets of TOS, making one of his proclamations that TAS wasn't binding just plays into the game plan he was already following. Making this decision known only to the licensees covers his ass legally, since the licensees are the part of the publicity machine that he'd have the least control over; everything else, like script submissions, can be booted with the cover excuse of how they don't want to see retreads of previous stories this soon, without having to cite TAS' "off limits" status directly.

THEN, when a deal is finally done, the ban quietly goes away, GR looks like a hero for letting Arex and M'Ress back into the fold, and nobody is really in a position to say otherwise.

Remember, at this stage of his life, Roddenberry was a starting to become a touch paranoid, along with a bigger control freak than before, so while this theory might be a tad overwrought, I don't think it's by much. He was going about attempting to establish himself as the final voice on anything Star Trek, and having a part of that empire out of his control, for whatever reason, would grate against that, so rather than admit that he wasn't in total control after all, it would be more in his nature to try and preempt that discovery and declare it off limits himself.

And look how well that worked. We're still debating the validity of the decision nearly twenty-five years later, well after we've probably figured out the real history.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Making this decision known only to the licensees covers his ass legally, since the licensees are the part of the publicity machine that he'd have the least control over; everything else, like script submissions, can be booted with the cover excuse of how they don't want to see retreads of previous stories this soon, without having to cite TAS' "off limits" status directly.

GR was supposedly extremely concerned that the licensed tie-ins were contributing to a dilution of what was, in 1989, a much bigger juggernaut than it had been. He detested the flier he saw, where Diane Duane was called "the creator of the Rihannsu". He was dismayed when Gerrold and Fontana pressed to be credited as co-creators of TNG, and therefore I can imagine that shunting TAS into the realm of non canonicity was a convenient way to diminish their ST contributions. The renegotiation of licenses in 1989 allowed GR to be contractually specific about what elements should be featured or not featured in the tie-ins. Richard Arnold used to say the new focus of tie-ins, from 1989, had to be on "the big seven" characters of TOS and "the big eight" of TNG.

It really wasn't a case of not telling the public that TAS was now off-limits. It wasn't really their business. In any case, DC Comics did publish a quote from "the memo" to explain why Arex and M'Ress had gone, and one of the ST novelists had put the text of the memo sent to licensees up onto GEnie and Usenet. Richard Arnold enthusiastically regaled convention audiences that "the animated characters don't cross over with the movies" if some hapless comics fan enquired about the renewed license contracts of 1989.

But don't forget, this period wasn't the first time that the likenesses of Arex and M'Ress had caused difficulties. Two (uncredited) Alan Dean Foster storylines were turned into comics for Power Records. He thought he was only supplying scripts for audio productions.

Arex was redrawn, at seemingly the last minute, as a blond caucasian male crewman, Mr Connors, who just so happened to have a huge Edoan musical intrument in his cabin that he dragged up onto the bridge. You can see the paste-up changes where "Arex" become "Connors", and weird gaps that seem to suggest a missing leg. ("The Crier in Emptiness"). In the accompanying comic, M'Ress was redrawn as a bluish hominid woman, vaguely resembling Marta the Orion, but still called M'Ress the Caitian ("Passage to Moauv").

This incident is a good indication that the Filmation contracts put the likenesses of Arex and M'Ress under a legal cloud long before 1989, and that when DC Comics added them to the comics cast, no one had realised there were contractual restraints or permissions required.

 

[Christopher]

GR ... was dismayed when Gerrold and Fontana pressed to be credited as co-creators of TNG, and therefore I can imagine that shunting TAS into the realm of non canonicity was a convenient way to diminish their ST contributions.

Which is unfair, since they and Bob Justman did contribute a lot to the creation of TNG. Heck, a lot of stuff that ended up in TNG, such as the captain not leading landing parties himself, was proposed by Gerrold in his 1973 book The World of Star Trek where he talked about how the premise could've been improved on. It's a shame GR wasn't willing to share the creator credit.

This incident is a good indication that the Filmation contracts put the likenesses of Arex and M'Ress under a legal cloud long before 1989, and that when DC Comics added them to the comics cast, no one had realised there were contractual restraints or permissions required.

Interesting thought. TAS was kind of in a unique situation; until the 2009 movie, it was the only Star Trek production that was a co-production between studios -- Filmation, Roddenberry's Norway Corporation, and Paramount (although I think Paramount may have just been the distributor at first). So it does stand to reason that there might've been some ownership questions and that they might've come as a surprise in some cases because they were an exception to the normal pattern.

 

[mb22]

Regarding TAS and the year 1989, it is interesting that it became officially available on VHS and laserdisc that year (perhaps to tie in with ST V). Significant is the title on the boxes: The Animated Adventures of Gene Rodenberry's Star Trek. Pretty ironic considering that GR 'de-canonized' TAS that very year. Was someone trying send a message to Fontana and Gerrold by using this title?
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6301320352.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

 

[Christopher]

I doubt there was any such "message" intended. It's far more likely that they were considering the prestige of Roddenberry's name at the time. TNG was the biggest success in the history of first-run syndicated drama, and as its creator, Roddenberry was a big deal. Naturally the distributors of the TAS tapes would've wanted to put his name on the cover to say to prospective buyers, "Yes, this is from the same guy who makes TNG," thereby enhancing its marketability. Heck, I doubt the folks in the home video division would've even known about some internal squabble between Roddenberry and Fontana/Gerrold.

 

[Galileo7]

TAS must be canon and it is the completion of the five year mission began on TOS, a direct sequel. After TOS began the five-year mission (interrupted by NBC cancellation), TAS ended it.

 

[mb22]

I doubt there was any such "message" intended. It's far more likely that they were considering the prestige of Roddenberry's name at the time. TNG was the biggest success in the history of first-run syndicated drama, and as its creator, Roddenberry was a big deal. Naturally the distributors of the TAS tapes would've wanted to put his name on the cover to say to prospective buyers, "Yes, this is from the same guy who makes TNG," thereby enhancing its marketability. Heck, I doubt the folks in the home video division would've even known about some internal squabble between Roddenberry and Fontana/Gerrold.

True, but it is a bit ironic to use Roddenberry's name at a time when he was trying to diminish the importance of TAS within the Trek corpus.

 

[Christopher]

Well, why wouldn't they use his name? He's the creator of the series. His name was contractually required to be listed as the creator right after the title in both TOS and TAS. Besides, the box art you showed also listed Filmation produers Lou Scheimer and Norm Prescott by name as well as Shatner and Nimoy. Basically the box art lists the same names that were listed onscreen in the TAS main titles, with the exception of DeForest Kelley. That suggests that there might have been some contractual need to list those names on the box -- either that or the designers of the box art were trying to be thorough. It doesn't seem to be solely about Roddenberry's name, although what I said about the prestige of his name at the time would still apply.

 

[mb22]

Well, why wouldn't they use his name? He's the creator of the series. His name was contractually required to be listed as the creator right after the title in both TOS and TAS. Besides, the box art you showed also listed Filmation produers Lou Scheimer and Norm Prescott by name as well as Shatner and Nimoy.

Roddenberry's name is used as part of the title, not as a credit like the other names. But again, as you say, this is not neccessarily anything that significant.