Is TOS really part of Trek Canon?

[Robert D. Robot]

I didn't read through the entire thread, as I knew that a topic with such an inflammatory title would probably get a lot of people going, but I would suggest that the OP either rent or locate an online torrent of the Star Trek 25th Anniversary Special. That way, they can see exactly what Gene Roddenberry himself said about the difficulties in selling and making TOS.

As has been stated, back in the day, the studios wanted more westerns, action, and John Wayne-manly bare-knuckle fistfights. Gene Roddenberry hated that idea, but he also wanted to sell/make Star Trek, so he rewrote the original pilot to include more action and a bare-knuckle fistfight.

For its time, TOS was ahead of its time, and like it or not, you cannot make children without parents.

I do not wish to speak for the OP re: any real specifics, but in a couple of follow-up postings YARN did say that the thread topic was offered a bit tongue-in-cheek/thought-experiment, and yet was surprised how strongly a few posters actually felt that TOS should be (and actually COULD be) cut from canon.

 

[Sector 7]

^YARN tends to post pseudo-thought-provoking threads and posts, which confuses those used to seriously thought-provoking threads and posts. My children used to do this when trying to inject themselves into adult conversations. We called it "trying to get a rise" out of us.
I do not think he is intentionally trolling, although it could appear that way to some. My guess is that YARN is a psychology or sociology major.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

^ I do see what you mean. I know just reading that topic title is one sure way to make some folk's blood pressure start to rise... and I think that outcome would not surprise anyone. "Is TOS really science fiction" would probably get a similar avalanche started...

 

[YARN]

^YARN tends to post pseudo-thought-provoking threads and posts, which confuses those used to seriously thought-provoking threads and posts. My children used to do this when trying to inject themselves into adult conversations. We called it "trying to get a rise" out of us.
I do not think he is intentionally trolling, although it could appear that way to some. My guess is that YARN is a psychology or sociology major.

But if the child succeeds in getting a rise out of you, then your status as the adult is thrown into question (e.g., how "adult" are you if you find yourself in constant yelling matches with your kids?).

The idea that TOS isn't canon is, on its face, about the most absurd canon question imaginable. Read with the right spirit, this thread offers a sort of Monty Python sketch version of how childish all this canon stuff is at heart. The OP is meant to be laughed at, not taken seriously. It is meant to serve as a finger pointing toward the horizon of obsession that one plods toward when taking certain interpretive "rules" too seriously.

Unfortunately, there are some who appear to wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that TOS is not canon; parody only works when you can magnify excesses so as to make absurdity manifestly apparent.

Thought experiments sometimes famously backfire. The EPR thought experiment and "Schrodinger's Cat", for example, were not designed to affirm or elucidate the ontology of Quantum Physics, but to show the absurdities that follow from taking the ontology of it (beyond the math) too seriously.

Unfortunately for them, reality (at least at the quantum level) is, in fact, absurd.

Unfortunately for us, that people are already leaping to agree that TOS is not Trek is proof positive, IMO, that Trek fandom has gone through the looking glass, reifying peripheral aspects of a narrative reality in order to sustain a sort of immersive illusion of another world. Consequently, I don't view this thread as "causing problems", so much as revealing how problematic the rules of Trek fandom have become.

Sometimes it takes a child to reveal how childish a situation has become.

 

[CoveTom]

I dislike and completely disregard TOS... ...I mean, sorry, but it's just... ...cheap! It was a flop! Cancelled after only 3 seasons, it did worse than ENT. It only gained all the hype through the movies.

Really? So you think that TOS was an unpopular and unsuccessful flop. And that the studio then decided to spend tens of millions of dollars to make a feature film sequel to said flop? Generally, Hollywood does not operate that way.

 

[number6]

I dislike and completely disregard TOS... ...I mean, sorry, but it's just... ...cheap! It was a flop! Cancelled after only 3 seasons, it did worse than ENT. It only gained all the hype through the movies.

Really? So you think that TOS was an unpopular and unsuccessful flop. And that the studio then decided to spend tens of millions of dollars to make a feature film sequel to said flop? Generally, Hollywood does not operate that way.

The most compelling argument for TOS' place in its own canon is that everything that followed was based on Star Trek. Without TOS there is no franchise.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I dislike and completely disregard TOS... ...I mean, sorry, but it's just... ...cheap! It was a flop! Cancelled after only 3 seasons, it did worse than ENT. It only gained all the hype through the movies.

You know, you are forgetting something,George.

Hmm, let's see, what could that be...

after NBC cancelled the show, the executives watched in horror as the show became the most popular show in television history, despite the absence fo new episodes. Syndication allowed local stations to air episodes whenever, and the public soon started wanting stories like this due to scientific breakthroughs and little events like the moonlanding. Conventions were held that garnered many more people than anyone could have expected long before the films. In fact, the studio was originally going to make another TV show. Because of a couple of big films by Lucas and Spielberg, the pilot of that show was expanded to a feature. However, none of that would have happened if Trek hadn't already become a culturally significant show.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You just try telling Mr. Nimoy that

No problem. He's an actor, not a continuity buff. He just reads the lines.

Being a "continuity buff" doesn't make someone's opinion automatically interesting. Of course most people who pay any attention to begin with are more interested in whether Nimoy approves of the movie than whether some fanboy on the Internet does.

"Just reading the lines" - if that were all Nimoy does/has done, and of course it isn't - would itself be so much greater a creative contribution to Star Trek than the fan critics are capable of that it's not even funny.

 

[FormerLurker]

I would think McCoy would only about the brother through Kirk. So if Kirk calls him Sam, that's what McCoy will know him as.

Possible. But a one second throwaway line to establish this would be pretty much necessary to get it across to the fans. Besides, Jim Kirk only calling his brother 'Sam' to his face to tease him(for whatever reason) is the implication of android Kirk's line.

It could also inform the viewer that clearly McCoy and Kirk are somewhat close friends.

Only if the aforementioned one second throwaway line is there, this time as an absolute necessity. And why, if Jim Kirk calls his brother 'Sam' to tease him, would McCoy be using the name anyway?

No "throwaway" line is necessary. Kirk and Bones are clearly close friends. I don't understand the constant need for everything to be painfully explained. Do you really need to be spoonfed?? Should every script and storyline come with bibliographical annotations?? I think people need to use their imaginations once in a great while.

Neither you nor BillJ get it so I'll say it again. Even if Kirk and McCoy are such great friends, if Kirk calls his brother 'Sam' to tease him, the implication, not spelled out, of the android Kirk's line, McCoy is not going to call him 'Sam.' He's going to call him 'George' like everyone else. This is where the very human and fallible writers made their mistake. Whichever one came up with this line of dialog, they didn't pay attention to the previous line in the previous episode.

McCoy calling Kirk's brother by a familiar name is to be expected among friends,who talk about their families to each other. But a friend would not address a sibling of their friend by the teasing nickname the friend does if they respect their friend. That kind of familiarity is only shared between people who know each other directly, and in TOS we never got any indication, even in "Operation Annihilate," that McCoy had ever met Kirk's brother. That is why it is a mistake.

 

[Warped9]

You just try telling Mr. Nimoy that

No problem. He's an actor, not a continuity buff. He just reads the lines.

Being a "continuity buff" doesn't make someone's opinion automatically interesting. Of course most people who pay any attention to begin with are more interested in whether Nimoy approves of the movie than whether some fanboy on the Internet does.

"Just reading the lines" - if that were all Nimoy does/has done, and of course it isn't - would itself be so much greater a creative contribution to Star Trek than the fan critics are capable of that it's not even funny.

My point is that Nimoy isn't someone likely versed in the detail and minutia of what has been established in Trek as a whole of TOS in its entirety particularly after forty or fifty years of a full career. Of course he understands the Spock character because he helped create him. But whatever the JJ film gets wrong about Prime Spock then Nimoy isn't likely to catch it because beyond input into some aspects of the character Nimoy is just being paid to play the part and not to go over continuity consistency for accuracy.

Nimoy's intent isn't the issue. What the film says or does regarding Spock Prime's character is.

 

[BillJ]

Neither you nor BillJ get it so I'll say it again. Even if Kirk and McCoy are such great friends, if Kirk calls his brother 'Sam' to tease him, the implication, not spelled out, of the android Kirk's line, McCoy is not going to call him 'Sam.' He's going to call him 'George' like everyone else. This is where the very human and fallible writers made their mistake. Whichever one came up with this line of dialog, they didn't pay attention to the previous line in the previous episode.

I'm sorry, but I don't get where you think Sam is being called Sam because of 'teasing'?

KIRK: What about memory? Tell me about Sam.
KIRK2: George Samuel Kirk, your brother. Only you call him Sam.
KIRK: He saw me off on this mission.
KIRK2: Yes, with his wife and three sons.
KIRK: He said he was being transferred to Earth colony two research station.
KIRK2: No, Captain. He said he was continuing his research and that he wanted to be transferred to Earth colony two.

There are literally dozens of reasons Kirk could have called him 'Sam', from it being easier for young Jimmy to pronounce to not liking to compare his brother to his father. You're really reaching by calling this a mistake.

 

[Shatnertage]

No problem. He's an actor, not a continuity buff. He just reads the lines.

Being a "continuity buff" doesn't make someone's opinion automatically interesting. Of course most people who pay any attention to begin with are more interested in whether Nimoy approves of the movie than whether some fanboy on the Internet does.

"Just reading the lines" - if that were all Nimoy does/has done, and of course it isn't - would itself be so much greater a creative contribution to Star Trek than the fan critics are capable of that it's not even funny.

My point is that Nimoy isn't someone likely versed in the detail and minutia of what has been established in Trek as a whole of TOS in its entirety particularly after forty or fifty years of a full career. Of course he understands the Spock character because he helped create him. But whatever the JJ film gets wrong about Prime Spock then Nimoy isn't likely to catch it because beyond input into some aspects of the character Nimoy is just being paid to play the part and not to go over continuity consistency for accuracy.

Nimoy's intent isn't the issue. What the film says or does regarding Spock Prime's character is.

Here we go with this whole post-structuralist/deconstructivist critique of Trek.

I have difficulty accepting that some random guy who watched the show knows more about Spock than the guy who originated the character and played him for 40 years.

Leonard Nimoy did more than just show up, read lines, and collect a paycheck. He presumably read the beginning brief for the character, had discussions with the production team about the character, and even added elements (like the Vulcan neck pinch and LLAP/blessing of the priests gesture) that are now accepted as essential to Spock.

He's probably forgotten more about Spock than any of us know--he is far better versed in the "detail and minutia" than any of us. If he says that Spock in the movie is Spock from the TV show, that's good enough for me.

 

[Warped9]

^^ You are not understanding anything. It's being argued that Prime Spock in ST09 is the same one from TOS. I'm arguing he's not because of what the film conveys about that character. I'm not questioning Nimoy's sincerity or intent or what he believes. I'm simply saying that the writers got background details of the character wrong, things that were established in TOS. And I don't expect Nimoy to catch something like that after forty years.

It doesn't matter if Nimoy believes it's the same character. If the details in the film are inconsistent with what was originally established in TOS then it isn't the same character.

It's a damned reboot anyway so what's the big deal. ST09 is a restart switch.

 

[Neutral Zone]

Going back to the original question, (IMO)TOS should and is a part of Trek Canon. It is the foundation stone to the entire world of Trek, without it there would be no Trek, no sequel series, films or even this forum. It laid the very basics to transporters, warp travel, phasers and various imaginary planets and races that we all take for normal where Trek is concerned etc. Without TOS there would be no nerdy Trekkies which most of us are

 

[number6]

^^ You are not understanding anything. It's being argued that Prime Spock in ST09 is the same one from TOS. I'm arguing he's not because of what the film conveys about that character. I'm not questioning Nimoy's sincerity or intent or what he believes. I'm simply saying that the writers got background details of the character wrong, things that were established in TOS. And I don't expect Nimoy to catch something like that after forty years.

It doesn't matter if Nimoy believes it's the same character. If the details in the film are inconsistent with what was originally established in TOS then it isn't the same character.

It's a damned reboot anyway so what's the big deal. ST09 is a restart switch.

He's obviously not the same Spock from TOS. He is Spock from the 24th century. Nimoy has evolved the character and his own self awareness. I don't think he's written out of character at all from where we expect him to be. He is our link to the Prime Universe. I think most of the complaints to this matter are completely ludicrous since we've heard about it from Nimoy himself, and don't fool yourself into thinking he had no influence on how is character is portrayed in the film. Nimoy's presence and influence on this film is far deeper than just another paycheck and it shows.
There wouldn't be a film with Nimoy if he thought it wasn't worth his time. He's declined to participate before so I don't see why his enthusiasm for this film could be anything but genuine.

The level of minutae being blown out of all reasonable proportion is beyond the concerns of the creative team who cared about making a good film on their own terms. There's a new sheriff in town and this is how Star Trek will be done, at least for the present.

This isn't the first time Trek fell out of the original creator's original team. Bennet did the same thing with TWOK as a fresh new crew, and yes there were a lot of pissed off fans then, but even they don't deny the popularity of the film and its significance in Trek universe. I definitely think of this as a Wrath of Khan-type shakedown.

The analogy I used before was TMP:TWOK is as Cage:WNMHGB. The same could be said for STXI's relationship to the franchise as a whole. I really believe they needed to be different to take it to the next level. I am eager to see what they come up with next and how it diverges from the original universe, and I'm also interested in whether or not they'll follow up on the "History repairing itself" nugget they threw into the film.
It could either be good or not.

But Hey.. I consider myself lucky to have enjoyed more of the Star Trek saga than those who refuse to involve themselves as a matter of pride. They're missing out on the fun and it's entirely their loss, not mine.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Of course the Spock in the movie is an older version of the one who appeared in TOS. This is not in serious dispute.

I have difficulty accepting that some random guy who watched the show knows more about Spock than the guy who originated the character and played him for 40 years.

Of course not - claiming otherwise is just a failing tactic looking for advantage in an online argument.

 

[FormerLurker]

Neither you nor BillJ get it so I'll say it again. Even if Kirk and McCoy are such great friends, if Kirk calls his brother 'Sam' to tease him, the implication, not spelled out, of the android Kirk's line, McCoy is not going to call him 'Sam.' He's going to call him 'George' like everyone else. This is where the very human and fallible writers made their mistake. Whichever one came up with this line of dialog, they didn't pay attention to the previous line in the previous episode.

I'm sorry, but I don't get where you think Sam is being called Sam because of 'teasing'?

According to the line quotes you used(see below), Jim is the only one who ever calls him 'Sam.' Little brothers are notorious for calling older brothers by teasing nicknames. I know from experience, as I am a younger brother.

KIRK: What about memory? Tell me about Sam.
KIRK2: George Samuel Kirk, your brother. Only you call him Sam.
KIRK: He saw me off on this mission.
KIRK2: Yes, with his wife and three sons.
KIRK: He said he was being transferred to Earth colony two research station.
KIRK2: No, Captain. He said he was continuing his research and that he wanted to be transferred to Earth colony two.

There are literally dozens of reasons Kirk could have called him 'Sam', from it being easier for young Jimmy to pronounce to not liking to compare his brother to his father. You're really reaching by calling this a mistake.

The mistake was not anywhere in this dialog. Reread my post in its entirety. The mistake was perpetrated by the writer of "Operation Annihilate" when they didn't pay attention to the line "Only you call him Sam."(emphasis mine) As for your dozens of reasons, I cite Occam's Razor and claim it was a younger brother's teasing that gave George the nickname 'Sam,' as only Jim used the name.

 

[JarodRussell]

Of course the Spock in the movie is an older version of the one who appeared in TOS. This is not in serious dispute.

I have difficulty accepting that some random guy who watched the show knows more about Spock than the guy who originated the character and played him for 40 years.

Of course not - claiming otherwise is just a failing tactic looking for advantage in an online argument.

I disagree. Fans are obsessed with the end result they see on screen. The actor is primarily interested in his work, but not necessarily the end result. Shatner, for example, hasn't seen one complete episode of Trek, not even of TOS. So especially when an actor returns after several years to play a character, it's perfectly possible that the character will be played entirely "wrong". The actor changed, the entire creative team changed, so the character will change.

One could see that in movies like Die Hard 4. John McClane was not only bald, he was a very different character (the tired, passive, silent type Willis likes to play since, I dunno, The 6th Sense, and not the active, loud, vivid type he liked to play back then), even though Willis claimed he played him just like in the past.

This might not necessarily mean that Nimoy's intention and the end result differ in the case of Trek XI, but it's perfectly possible. So it's not just a "failing tactic".

 

[BillJ]

The mistake was not anywhere in this dialog. Reread my post in its entirety. The mistake was perpetrated by the writer of "Operation Annihilate" when they didn't pay attention to the line "Only you call him Sam."(emphasis mine) As for your dozens of reasons, I cite Occam's Razor and claim it was a younger brother's teasing that gave George the nickname 'Sam,' as only Jim used the name.

So when he's sitting around sipping a Saurian Brandy with McCoy, telling stories about the family he's from, how does he identify his brother?

And if Kirk calls him 'Sam', why would McCoy know any difference?

 

[Warped9]

The mistake was not anywhere in this dialog. Reread my post in its entirety. The mistake was perpetrated by the writer of "Operation Annihilate" when they didn't pay attention to the line "Only you call him Sam."(emphasis mine) As for your dozens of reasons, I cite Occam's Razor and claim it was a younger brother's teasing that gave George the nickname 'Sam,' as only Jim used the name.

So when he's sitting around sipping a Saurian Brandy with McCoy, telling stories about the family he's from, how does he identify his brother?

And if Kirk calls him 'Sam', why would McCoy know any difference?

You've essentially nailed it. At the time of "What Are Little Girls Made Of" Kirk is the only one who calls him Sam. But if Kirk only refers to his brother as Sam when he speaks of him then why would McCoy refer to him as anything else for no reason?