Is TOS really part of Trek Canon?

[Warped9]

TOS was crap and the other shows were miles better, they are what I base my defination of Trek on, which is why for me, TOS isn't Trek.

Perspective. From where I stand TOS helped define how to do SF adventure/drama on television. It certainly was not and is not crap. From the perspective of many a lot of what followed in TOS' name was and is crap.

Star Trek TOS challenged many accepted sci-fi conventions. It's successors have done little to none of that. Some things may seem cliche now because we've seen them done to death, but back in the day they weren't cliches yet because TOS was doing them for the first time.

And many of the things that contemporary Trek has brought to the franchise I and others could happily do without.

 

[AMQ]

I have never had the opportunity to watch TOS and I definitely plan to get it on DVD. It's insane IMO to consider something that started ST phenomenon not a part of it. Of course it might have its mistakes and things, characters or situations that seem ridiculous now, but still it's how it all began and as such should be respected and a part of canon.

 

[maneth]

I feel a bit silly saying this but this sounds like a troll specifically designed for a Star Trek board.

I can understand new fans not being into the original Trek, but if you think it's so bad as to say that, it then surprises me you'd like any Trek at all.

And for what it's worth, I'm 37 and became a Trek fan in 1986 all due to TOS (no TNG yet) but still absolutely loved the new movie.

You could be my twin, only I'm 38.

TOS may look cheesy to modern viewers, but it's what started everything after all. It would be really weird to cut it out of canon.

 

[YARN]

I have never had the opportunity to watch TOS and I definitely plan to get it on DVD. It's insane IMO to consider something that started ST phenomenom not a part of it. Of course it might have its mistakes and things, characters or situations that seem ridiculous now, but still it's how it all began and as such should be respected and a part of canon.

Well, there are certain foundational material facts which get repeated (many others get contradicted) throughout the series which are, no doubt, canonical.

Look at it this way:

The Star Wars saga officially begins with Episode I and Jar Jar. For many children, Star Wars begins (experientially/chronologically) with episode I. Films 4-6 (however vaguely) refer to events which occurred in films 1-3.

And yet many Star Wars fans hold that 1-3 aren't really part of SW canon. No in denying that 1-3 are canon are they denying the references in films 4-6? No, they are simply denying that those references refer to what they saw in films 1-3. They would rather keep the references vague and undefined.

You could dump TOS as canon without denying canonical status of the references we find in the later films. When we think of the original Trek era, we should simply have a vague sense of it existing like a mystery, like the "clone wars" when we originally saw Star Wars.

The ghost vaguely appears in ENT's Mirror Universe episode and in the Tribble episode on DS9, and a few guest appearances, but a ghost it remains - the bad sfx, the Kirk-fu, the chauvinism remains discretely in the background.

At least, that is a likely sort of counter-argument you'll encounter.

Is the only way to stop this madness for us to stop refereeing what is really Trek?

 

[Warped9]

Well, you can simply do what I tend to do only in reverse. While I tend to ignore and dismiss most everything post 1979 you could do the same pre 1979. It wouldn't surprise if me you got a lot more vocal support than I've experienced.

 

[AMQ]

And yet many Star Wars fans hold that 1-3 aren't really part of SW canon. No in denying that 1-3 are canon are they denying the references in films 4-6? No, they are simply denying that those references refer to what they saw in films 1-3. They would rather keep the references vague and undefined.

You could dump TOS as canon without denying canonical status of the references we find in the later films. When we think of the original Trek era, we should simply have a vague sense of it existing like a mystery, like the "clone wars" when we originally saw Star Wars.

I don't see the point in keeping the references vague and undefined - if we actually know what happened, if it was showed and explained and connected with the other series and movies ... It's my opinion in both ST and SW.
Yes they may be bad things, old - fashioned, the bad sfx, the Kirk-fu, the chauvinism but it was made that way back then, it was product of the same idea that gave us all those other series and movies.
So I would "forgive" what I personally wouldn't liked and still appreciated the idea that started it all.

 

[BillJ]

I have never had the opportunity to watch TOS and I definitely plan to get it on DVD. It's insane IMO to consider something that started ST phenomenom not a part of it. Of course it might have its mistakes and things, characters or situations that seem ridiculous now, but still it's how it all began and as such should be respected and a part of canon.

Well, there are certain foundational material facts which get repeated (many others get contradicted) throughout the series which are, no doubt, canonical.

Look at it this way:

The Star Wars saga officially begins with Episode I and Jar Jar. For many children, Star Wars begins (experientially/chronologically) with episode I. Films 4-6 (however vaguely) refer to events which occurred in films 1-3.

And yet many Star Wars fans hold that 1-3 aren't really part of SW canon. No in denying that 1-3 are canon are they denying the references in films 4-6? No, they are simply denying that those references refer to what they saw in films 1-3. They would rather keep the references vague and undefined.

You could dump TOS as canon without denying canonical status of the references we find in the later films. When we think of the original Trek era, we should simply have a vague sense of it existing like a mystery, like the "clone wars" when we originally saw Star Wars.

The ghost vaguely appears in ENT's Mirror Universe episode and in the Tribble episode on DS9, and a few guest appearances, but a ghost it remains - the bad sfx, the Kirk-fu, the chauvinism remains discretely in the background.

At least, that is a likely sort of counter-argument you'll encounter.

Is the only way to stop this madness for us to stop refereeing what is really Trek?

By taking out Star Trek, you really take out the only one that was fun.

Let's see all the things we can attribute directly to the ghost that has appeared in later incarnations:

Enterprise
Defiant
Starfleet
Arrowhead insignia
UESPA
Rank structure
The Federation
Klingons
Romulans
Melorians
Kirk
Spock
McCoy
Scott
Sulu
Spock Prime
Pike
The Neutral Zone
Phasers
Photon Torpedoes
Shields
Khan
The Eugenics War
Kang
Kor
Koloth
Prime Directive
Psi 2000 virus


Just to name a few... not to mention that the basic designs of later series owe their existence to Matt Jefferies.

Seems the ghost had a substantial impact.

 

[Warped9]

Don't the newer versions of Dr. Who tend to overlook the specifics of what came before while maintaining the general ideas or mythos of what was done previously?

 

[AMQ]

Seems the ghost had a substantial impact.

Exactly, that's why I want to see it

 

[BillJ]

Not to mention that four episodes of Modern Trek depict the mid-23rd century exactly as Star Trek did:

Relics
Trials and Tribble-ations
In a Mirror, Darkly I/II

Plus the Enterprise is depicted twice in the films as she appeared in Star Trek:

Generations - As a painting on the wall of Kirk's cabin.

First Contact - One of the models on the display case on the Enterprise - E.

I think even Rick Berman considered it canon.

 

[F. King Daniel]

The problem is the suggestion that everything in Star Trek "happened" exactly as we saw it on television.

Who actually believes computer screens will de-evolve to the point where they can only display coloured squares that blink on and off in 250 years? Or that women won't be starship captains in the 2260's, when they can in the 2150's and the 2280's? Or that the Gorn really looks like a guy in a suit?

It's the silly notion that everything is to be taken literally that causes the problems. The minute people get a reality check (it's a fucking TV show!) and realize that we're seeing the pretend future through the eyes of whatever era the various shows and films are made in you realize it's all meant to be taken with a pinch of salt and enjoyed for what it is. Nothing needs "fixing" or "de-canonizing" and all the "X looks too advanced compared to Y", or "A looks too outdated next to B" arguments are utterly worthless.

 

[YARN]

Yes they may be bad things, old - fashioned, the bad sfx, the Kirk-fu, the chauvinism but it was made that way back then, it was product of the same idea that gave us all those other series and movies.
So I would "forgive" what I personally wouldn't liked and still appreciated the idea that started it all.

I don't really think TOS is bad. The SFX are charming as is the Kirk-fu. The chauvinism is part of the show's time and place. If you can't filter that stuff out, you really can't enjoy any literature that reflects the prejudices of its day. TOS was daring and progressive simply in having women serving on military vessels and having officer-level ranks.

 

[RandyS]

Did someone really just ask if TOS was cannon

No, you're dreaming. Go back to sleep.

 

[BillJ]

In universe, Earth fought two devastating global conflicts and one interstellar conflict between the 1990's and 2260's (that we know of). Who's to say that those conflicts didn't set technology back or that the more modern tech didn't fair as well in war time conditions?

We keep comparing Trek to our timeline, when in fact it branches off as early as 1968 with the launch of a nuclear arms platform. Star Trek takes place in an imaginary timeline where technology didn't evolve in exactly the same way it did in our universe.

I don't see a huge problem.

 

[YARN]

We keep comparing Trek to our timeline, when in fact it branches off as early as 1968 with the launch of a nuclear arms platform. Star Trek takes place in an imaginary timeline where technology didn't evolve in exactly the same way it did.

A good point, but it seems inevitable that Trek will eventually retcon the timeline to more closely resemble our own. For example, shifting key Trek events more far forward into the future.

 

[BillJ]

We keep comparing Trek to our timeline, when in fact it branches off as early as 1968 with the launch of a nuclear arms platform. Star Trek takes place in an imaginary timeline where technology didn't evolve in exactly the same way it did.

A good point, but it seems inevitable that Trek will eventually retcon the timeline to more closely resemble our own. For example, shifting key Trek events more far forward into the future.

Which is why, at some point, they'll have to do a true reboot. Moving the Eugenics Wars to 2096 is putting it awfully close to Enterprise (right at 60 years apart).

With a true reboot the canon argument becomes moot. But not only does it wipe away Star Trek from canon but Modern Trek as well.

 

[Nerd unRage]

The problem is the suggestion that everything in Star Trek "happened" exactly as we saw it on television.

Who actually believes computer screens will de-evolve to the point where they can only display coloured squares that blink on and off in 250 years? Or that women won't be starship captains in the 2260's, when they can in the 2150's and the 2280's? Or that the Gorn really looks like a guy in a suit?

It's the silly notion that everything is to be taken literally that causes the problems. The minute people get a reality check (it's a fucking TV show!) and realize that we're seeing the pretend future through the eyes of whatever era the various shows and films are made in you realize it's all meant to be taken with a pinch of salt and enjoyed for what it is. Nothing needs "fixing" or "de-canonizing" and all the "X looks too advanced compared to Y", or "A looks too outdated next to B" arguments are utterly worthless.

Agreed.

Disregarding TOS as not canon simply because you think it looks cheesy, lame, and dated, is illogical. I personally like TOS and I'm 30. I can overlook the sometimes questionable acting and cheesy sets because I enjoy the story of it. Not all episodes of course, but overall, it's the stories I appreciate. It's fun to see what the writers in the 60s thought the future was going to be like. I find it scary they thought there would be WWIII in the 1990s, for example.

Without TOS, there are no movies, there is no TNG and the rest of the subsequent shows. It IS canon whether you like the series or not. It IS the basis for everything else. While the new movie and any future movies will be different and follow their own timeline, they doesn't necessarily completely erase all that has previously happened in any series or movie. It simply just changes things.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Why bother? It is what it is. If the last movie had been a full reboot then sure, go for it. As it is, leave it be.

 

[Nardpuncher]

The problem is the suggestion that everything in Star Trek "happened" exactly as we saw it on television.

Who actually believes computer screens will de-evolve to the point where they can only display coloured squares that blink on and off in 250 years? Or that women won't be starship captains in the 2260's, when they can in the 2150's and the 2280's? Or that the Gorn really looks like a guy in a suit?

It's the silly notion that everything is to be taken literally that causes the problems. The minute people get a reality check (it's a fucking TV show!) and realize that we're seeing the pretend future through the eyes of whatever era the various shows and films are made in you realize it's all meant to be taken with a pinch of salt and enjoyed for what it is. Nothing needs "fixing" or "de-canonizing" and all the "X looks too advanced compared to Y", or "A looks too outdated next to B" arguments are utterly worthless.

Well said.

When you think about it all being an 'interpretation' it's true, because if it wasn't, how could Kirk, Spock, McCoy and even Picard, Janeway etc. just all happen to resemble 20th/21st century actors?!?!?
I'm only half joking when I put it that way. That's why , as you said, the displays etc. are not exactly the way they'd really look.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Is this a serious question? Yeah, it's canon. If anyone doesn't like it well...tough titties. It is.