TAS: why not canon?

Discussion in 'Star Trek - The Original & Animated Series' started by PCz911, Aug 1, 2014.

  1. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Well, yes, that's exactly my point -- that one was a rare technology that was only just starting out, while the other was a much more established, trusted, and widely used technology that had a lot more momentum. If holodecks were brand new and something went wrong, people might question the very concept of holodecks; but if they're well-established and widely available and something goes wrong with one, then people would probably just question the quality of that particular make of holodeck. (For all we know, Starfleet was switching its holodeck suppliers after every fatal holodeck malfunction. Maybe that's why Voyager's holodeck grid looked so different from the Enterprise's -- because the company that made the black-and-yellow-grid holodecks went under after all the mishaps caused by its equipment.)
     
  2. plynch

    plynch Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Location:
    Outer Graceland
    Hey, Christopher, you've said before that canon is that which you writers of novels, game plots, et c. are not to contradict. Essentially it is what was ever on a tv or movie screen. Is there someone at Paramount/CBS/whoever that oversees or polices that? And is TAS included in what you should not contradict or conflict with?
     
  3. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    As a rule, although of course any long-running canon will contradict itself accidentally or intentionally, in which case we have to reconcile things as best we can -- although generally the more up-to-date version of things is the favored one.


    There is a studio licensing department that has approval over all the books, comics, games, etc., as with any tie-in license. For many years, Trek books were approved by Paula Block of Paramount Licensing (later CBS Consumer Products), and then by John Van Citters alongside her. Paula retired for a while, leaving John in charge, but now she's back on a freelance basis. We've been lucky to get licensing people who (unlike their predecessor Richard Arnold) were supportive of our creative efforts and saw us as partners to the core franchise. There was a panel about tie-in literature at Shore Leave a couple of weeks ago, and I remember people saying that some licensors see the tie-in creators more as competitors who need to be kept in their place.

    Novelists have been free to incorporate TAS elements for many years now; for my own part, I've done so extensively in Forgotten History and Rise of the Federation. But on the other hand, the recent The Light Fantastic seemed to ignore the events of "Mudd's Passion." So it doesn't seem like there's a rigid policy on TAS.
     
  4. BK613

    BK613 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Why? He was making a new ST for the 1980s; why would he be bound by anything that came before? He wouldn't. And it doesn't take malice or avarice to make that decision (or just to be selective about what is included, if you choose to include anything.) Also seems like that is a smart choice, not burdening your creative team that way.
    Besides, this was a pattern he had exhibited before with TMP; changing, updating, and ignoring what had come before.

    All TNG would need was a nod to the old stuff ("cue the 137 year-old admiral") and it was off to the races, doing its own thing.

    (As an aside, I am still would like to GR's own words on this canon thing; I've only seen the third-party-after-GR-died version of this canon legend. But hey, Liberty Valance and all that, ;):lol:)
     
  5. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Of course, in principle, he had the right to reinvent the universe, but the point is that there's a difference between choosing to disregard tie-ins -- which nobody should expect to be binding on the creator in any case, ever -- and choosing to disregard actual past canon. You were talking about canon and tie-ins as if they were equal and interchangeable, saying he had to decide whether to pick and choose among the whole lot in order to weed out contradictions. But that's not how it works. The tie-in material was automatically expendable -- there was no decision to be made there. If there were a choice to be made between contradictory data, then the canonical version would trump the tie-in version by default. It's normal for a revival of the canon to ignore the tie-ins entirely -- for instance, the new Star Wars movies are ignoring the Expanded Universe. But at the same time, they're trying to be true to the prior screen canon, which is generally what revivals tend to do. The creators have the option of retconning or ignoring elements of prior canon, but the default position is to accept it -- contrary to tie-ins, where the default position is to ignore them.


    I have no idea where that statement comes from. Who said anything about malice or avarice? I wasn't saying Roddenberry was morally wrong to reconsider past canon, I was just clarifying that there's no reason to expect that tie-ins should ever be a crucial consideration in the decisions made by screen creators about their canons. They're a side issue.
     
  6. martok2112

    martok2112 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    It seems to have been a really wild road for Trek novels over the years.

    Back in the 80's, a lot of the novels that were coming out for Trek were heavily influenced by FantaSimulations (FASA) who had the license to do the Star Trek Role Playing Game/Starship Tactical Combat Simulator. I mean, right down to the terminology, the history, and the non-Okrand Klingon language, and such.

    After a while, I think Paramount was getting sick and tired of seeing the novel lore being influenced by a licensee that was suddenly getting mistaken for -- wait for it -- canon. (OOps...I said the "c" word.) So, in the early nineties, Paramount either revoked, or chose not to renew FASA's license for Star Trek.

    Christopher, will you indulge a series of dumb questions? :)

    Obviously there are many writers for Star Trek novels, and I guess they have to adhere to "canon policies" or what not. Do you get assigned a story idea to write? Or do you submit your own ideas for a story, and then wait for approval to pursue it further?

    Thank you for your time. :)
     
  7. BK613

    BK613 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    For someone producing a new series, especially one that is in effect a soft reboot, I think that they are. Because what we are talking about is the source material (i.e, the canon) for the new series. At least that is what I am talking about. Now, you can keep what works if you want to (assuming you legally can), but in principle, you can jettison the whole kit'n'kaboodle too.
    (LOL Imagine an alternate universe where FASA was as popular as D&D and TNG ended up being a FASA adaptation LOL)
    Sorry if that came across as being aimed at you but these discussions are always laced with comments attributing motives to peoples' actions without actually providing, well, any sources. Most of them come across as "It is known, Khaleesi" type comments. :lol:
     
  8. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    I'm always bewildered when people assume we're told what to write. Coming up with stories is what they hire us to do! If you hired an architect to design a new wing on your house, you wouldn't do the blueprints yourself and tell them what to build -- the whole reason you hire the architect is because they're more qualified than you to come up with the ideas.

    CBS licenses Pocket, IDW, etc. to create tie-in fiction for them, and the editors at Pocket, IDW, etc. hire writers to develop and write the stories. Often they take pitches that we come up with entirely on our own; at other times, they may have a broad idea of what type of story they want to tell or what event they want to depict, but the reason they hire us is so that we can come up with the specifics of what that story will be. For instance, for The Buried Age, my editor asked me "How would you like to tell the story of Picard's missing years between the Stargazer and the Enterprise?", but it was my job to decide what that story would be; if a different writer had gotten the assignment, they would've surely told an entirely different story. The parameters we get are rarely more specific than that; I have occasionally been asked to write out a character or make a major change in that character's life, but the specifics of how it happens and how it fits into the story are left to me (for instance, in Greater Than the Sum I was asked to have Picard and Crusher conceive a child, but it was up to me to decide whether they got married first).

    Where the editors and licensors come into the process is that they approve or reject the ideas we come up with, or make suggestions to help us refine them. If they reject an idea, it's generally up to the writer to offer an alternative, or the writer and editor work together to hash something out.


    But the difference is that the tie-in material is a minor sidebar, something that 98 or 99 percent of the fanbase won't be aware of at all. It's a much, much more incidental matter than the prior screen canon. If you're relaunching a franchise, you know that the existing fanbase will be familiar with the screen material and will notice if you contradict it, so while you certainly can ignore it if it suits you, it's not a casual decision to do so because there's going to be pressure to acknowledge and respect it. But only a tiny fraction of your audience will even be aware of the tie-in fiction, so it's generally not a consideration to begin with. No matter how determined a franchise's relaunchers may be to stay faithful to the original canon, they'll still probably ignore the tie-ins altogether. You're treating them as if they're given equal weight and consideration, but they aren't.
     
  9. Silvercrest

    Silvercrest Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    He was Duke. I'm pretty sure he voiced several others too, but I haven't looked it up.

    And we all know his TNG connection, right?;)

    Without knowing anything about the field, I'd bet both can be true. I'm interested in hearing the answer.
     
  10. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Interesting to hear Michael Bell described as an iconic hero voice, since one of his notable roles was as Lex Luthor in the '88 Superman animated series, where he did a pretty good Gene Hackman pastiche. He'd also played young Luthor and the Riddler in Superfriends -- and he played Zan of the Wonder Twins and their pet monkey Gleek, which are pretty far from your classic square-jawed heroes.
     
  11. EnsignTOS

    EnsignTOS Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2014
    Location:
    Canton, Ohio
    Eeexactly. With that in mind, I consider TAS to be canon as far as I'm concerned. It looked like a pretty cool and underrated series, from what I've seen on the web. :) Besides, the original actors were used to voice their animated counterparts, so...why not?
     
  12. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    It is pretty unusual to get an animated adaptation in which none of the main cast members are substituted by other actors. Let's see, there was the animated Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventures: The first season produced by Hanna-Barbera featured Keanu Reeves, Alex Winter, George Carlin, and Bernie Casey reprising their roles, while the second season from DIC featured the same cast as the short-lived live-action series of the same title (although that series was so delayed that the cartoon came out first).

    And there were H-B's cartoon adaptations of Happy Days, Laverne & Shirley, and Mork & Mindy, which featured some or most of those shows' main casts (just three regulars in the first case, two in the second, and four in the third) and didn't feature any of the other regulars as far as I can tell, so there were no recastings.

    But the more common pattern is to have either a completely new cast or a mostly new cast with a few of the original players in it. For instance, Godzilla: The Series had Malcolm Danare, Kevin Dunn, and Michael Lerner returning from the movie, but everyone else was recast (it surprised me that they didn't get Hank Azaria, given the other animation work he's done). Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness brings back Lucy Liu and James Hong but recasts everyone else, and Dreamworks Dragons brings back Jay Baruchel, America Ferreira, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and T.J. Miller while recasting everyone else. Roughnecks: Starship Troopers Chronicles recast everyone except Clancy Brown, since Clancy Brown's always up for a cartoon role.

    And then there was the weird case of RoboCop: Alpha Commando, where Robert DoQui's character of Sgt. Reed was voiced by Blu Mankuma, who had played Reed's replacement character Sgt. Parks in RoboCop: The Series. That was confusing.
     
  13. martok2112

    martok2112 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    Christopher, thank you for responding to my questions. :)
    To be sure, I didn't want you to think I simply assumed you folks were "assigned" stories. That's why I asked questions from both ends. :)

    Thank you, again. :)
     
  14. BK613

    BK613 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    I understand what you are saying, and though you seem to be generalizing my statements about a specific moment in time in the 1980s, I can't bring myself to agree with you.
     
  15. johnnybear

    johnnybear Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    One minute the death penalty is general order 4 aqnd the next it's general order 7? Canon is really what we as individuals wish to believe! Especially as modern day writers seem to ignore what's been before to make their story better!
    JB
     
  16. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Canon is not a label applied to individual details, or an adjective meaning "right" or "real." It's a noun referring to the entire original body of work as distinguished from derivative works such as tie-ins and fan fiction. Any large canon contains inconsistencies, because that's just the nature of fiction. So expecting "canon" to mean "indisputably true and consistent" is unrealistic.
     
  17. Marsden

    Marsden Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Location:
    Marsden is very sad.

    I'm more of a General Order 24 guy, myself. :mallory:
     
  18. BillJ

    BillJ The King of Kings Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    America, Fuck Yeah!!!
    Canon is defined by the studio. What you are thinking of is personal continuity. What we each 'count' as having happened in universe.
     
  19. ToddPence

    ToddPence Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Location:
    Fairfax, VA
    Chekov's mistake can be attributed to his brain coming up with the wrong number in a moment of agitation. I do the same thing all the time. The reference back to the events of "The Menagerie", despite the error, is actually a great attempt by continuity on the part of the writers.
     
  20. Redfern

    Redfern Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    [​IMG]

    Sorry, guys! Just having of silly fun. :guffaw: :lol: :guffaw:

    This is just something I've wanted to post for a long time.

    Feel free to post it where you see fit and pass it along.

    Sincerely,

    Bill