The Animated Series - Good or mere Curiosity?

[Christopher]

I think the animation was pretty cool (the drawings/designs), but I do wish the characters had more movement. But like every TOS episode and movie (besides TMP) it had to deal with budget limitations.

Not just budget but schedule. The first season of TAS was produced under an insanely tight deadline, so even by the standards of '70s limited animation, Filmation had to cut a lot of corners. This is most notable in the lackluster voice acting, which is often more just line reading than performing. The actors just went in to whatever studio was convenient to where they were, banged out the lines without any directorial guidance to speak of, and literally mailed in their performances.

The 6 episodes of the second season were produced at a more leisurely pace, and you can tell that the acting and animation are better on those.

Kinda unfair that TNG show/movies and all the other Trek shows got huge budgets to do pretty much whatever they wanted when TOS had to constantly cut corners...even in animated form!

Actually all of the Trek movies except the first and most recent ones have been shot on quite constrained budgets. And even the newest movie had a relatively tight budget, which is why they shot the engineering scenes in a Budweiser brewery rather than building a set. And the TNG-era shows and ENT didn't have budgets nearly as high as it appeared. They had to cut corners like every other show. But Rick Berman, whatever faults he may have had creatively, was very, very good at getting the most for his money and making the shows look more expensive than they were.

 

[bismarck_1892]

Is The Animated Series actually, you know...good?

The price is down to $30 Canadian, and I'm tempted to get it, as I've never actually seen any of them at all. If the consensus is that they're actually good, I'll probably pick it up. But is it one those nostalgic curiosities more than actual quality?

And is it or is it not canon?

Its excellent, but non-canon (it is a cartoon). Get it if you can. Its worth the money. Its a smart cartoon, and not only for kids but adults as well. A true family show.

 

[Christopher]

Its excellent, but non-canon (it is a cartoon).

That's totally spurious logic, and an insult to the fine art of animation.

And no, it is not non-canon. Gene Roddenberry claimed in 1989 that it wasn't canon, but then he died and his dictates about canon ceased to have any applicability whatsoever. No subsequent Trek showrunners have ever avoided making TAS references, and indeed they've made a point of including some. Canon is not permanently defined; it's reinterpreted by each new showrunner or filmmaker. So there is no real or meaningful answer to the question of whether TAS is canon, and it's irrelevant anyway.

 

[bismarck_1892]

Its excellent, but non-canon (it is a cartoon).

That's totally spurious logic, and an insult to the fine art of animation.

And no, it is not non-canon. Gene Roddenberry claimed in 1989 that it wasn't canon, but then he died and his dictates about canon ceased to have any applicability whatsoever. No subsequent Trek showrunners have ever avoided making TAS references, and indeed they've made a point of including some. Canon is not permanently defined; it's reinterpreted by each new showrunner or filmmaker. So there is no real or meaningful answer to the question of whether TAS is canon, and it's irrelevant anyway.

I'm not really interested in engaging in an argument of whether the cartoon is canon or not. I enjoy watching it. However, question, could you provide examples of subsequent Trek showrunners making TAS references? I'm not arguing, just curious.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Its excellent, but non-canon (it is a cartoon).

That's totally spurious logic, and an insult to the fine art of animation.

And no, it is not non-canon. Gene Roddenberry claimed in 1989 that it wasn't canon, but then he died and his dictates about canon ceased to have any applicability whatsoever. No subsequent Trek showrunners have ever avoided making TAS references, and indeed they've made a point of including some. Canon is not permanently defined; it's reinterpreted by each new showrunner or filmmaker. So there is no real or meaningful answer to the question of whether TAS is canon, and it's irrelevant anyway.

I'm not really interested in engaging in an argument of whether the cartoon is canon or not. I enjoy watching it. However, question, could you provide examples of subsequent Trek showrunners making TAS references? I'm not arguing, just curious.

A huge hunk of Spock's childhood in the STXI owes itself to TAS's Yesteryear.

"You will always be a child of two worlds" is a paraphrase of something Sarek says to the child Spock in Yesteryear. Sarek of the movie is closer to Sarek in TAS than TOS IMHO.

The Vulcan children tormenting Spock in that ep are shown with the same insults towards him in the movie.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not really interested in engaging in an argument of whether the cartoon is canon or not. I enjoy watching it.

Which is exactly my point. It's a meaningless thing to worry about.

However, question, could you provide examples of subsequent Trek showrunners making TAS references? I'm not arguing, just curious.

References include descriptions of Spock's childhood in "Unification," nentions of Vulcan's Forge there and in ENT's Vulcan trilogy, Edosian orchids (after Edos, Arex's home planet in TAS background materials), and the name Klothos for Kor's battleship (referenced in DS9's "Once More Unto the Breach").

More references here: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Animated_Series#Background

That's right, Kirk's middle name of Tiberius was introduced in TAS.

 

[Penhall99]

I guess its open to interpretation whether or not TAS is canon, but the fact of the matter is that MANY things that first appeared in TAS were later confirmed in the live action shows.

Roddenberry may have said it wasnt canon, but he didnt view Star Trek V and parts of 6 as canon either.

So yeah, TAS is canon as far as I'm concerned.

 

[bismarck_1892]

That's totally spurious logic, and an insult to the fine art of animation.

And no, it is not non-canon. Gene Roddenberry claimed in 1989 that it wasn't canon, but then he died and his dictates about canon ceased to have any applicability whatsoever. No subsequent Trek showrunners have ever avoided making TAS references, and indeed they've made a point of including some. Canon is not permanently defined; it's reinterpreted by each new showrunner or filmmaker. So there is no real or meaningful answer to the question of whether TAS is canon, and it's irrelevant anyway.

I'm not really interested in engaging in an argument of whether the cartoon is canon or not. I enjoy watching it. However, question, could you provide examples of subsequent Trek showrunners making TAS references? I'm not arguing, just curious.

A huge hunk of Spock's childhood in the STXI owes itself to TAS's Yesteryear.

"You will always be a child of two worlds" is a paraphrase of something Sarek says to the child Spock in Yesteryear. Sarek of the movie is closer to Sarek in TAS than TOS IMHO.

The Vulcan children tormenting Spock in that ep are shown with the same insults towards him in the movie.

Yes, aside for nuTrek. I noticed that one too.

 

[RandyS]

By today's standards it's dated, but who cares? So is TOS. I loved it.

I say buy it.

If you can afford it. Feed yourself and pay your rent (or mortagage as the case may be) first.

 

[I am not Spock]

TAS was onscreen. Any onscreen Trek is canon, ain't it? So TAS qualifies. It's been referenced by the later spin offs, and it gave us Kirk's middle initial, and the number 47 for the first time (in More Tribbles, More Troubles).

I say Canon.

 

[Christopher]

TAS was onscreen. Any onscreen Trek is canon, ain't it? So TAS qualifies.

Yet another myth about canon. The canon of a series is the core body of work as opposed to derivative works from other creators. It's hard to say whether TAS counts as part of the core body or as a derivative work, though since it was a co-production of Filmation Associates, Paramount, and Roddenberry's Norway Corporation, I lean toward counting it as core rather than derivative.

However, the creators of a canon often do ignore or reinterpret earlier parts of it. For instance, Rick Berman & Brannon Braga have officially stated that VGR: "Threshold" never happened -- that, while onscreen, it is not considered canonical. They never referenced it again and arguably contradicted it with their later portrayals of transwarp.

So just being onscreen doesn't make something canon. It's true that everything that isn't onscreen is not canonical, but it's a fallacy to conclude that everything that is onscreen is therefore canonical. That's spurious logic. If all not-A are not-B, it doesn't follow that all A are B. For instance, all things that aren't round are not oranges, but that doesn't mean that all round things are oranges.

Canon is not some absolute rule that the creators are forced to follow. Canon is a matter of the current showrunners' opinion. The canon is whatever they decide they want it to be. And that makes it an arbitrary and mutable thing. TAS has been referenced, so it's at least relevant to canon. But whether it is or isn't canon is a meaningless question, because the next Trek production could easily reverse previous decisions. Roddenberry said TAS had to be ignored, but his successors acknowledged it implicitly. Their successors could acknowledge it overtly or contradict it overtly. Canon is creative choice, not cosmic law.

So it's a pointless thing to worry about. Whether TAS is canon has no meaning. So could we instead talk about something that actually matters, like its content and creative merits?

 

[bismarck_1892]

TAS was onscreen. Any onscreen Trek is canon, ain't it? So TAS qualifies.

Canon is not some absolute rule that the creators are forced to follow. Canon is a matter of the current showrunners' opinion. The canon is whatever they decide they want it to be. And that makes it an arbitrary and mutable thing.

I also think that a lot of fans have their own canon. We ignore what we don't like, and state as "canon" those shows or elements of the shows which we like.

 

[Christopher]

I also think that a lot of fans have their own canon. We ignore what we don't like, and state as "canon" those shows or elements of the shows which we like.

Which is like saying that the Moon has its own rutabaga. It's a complete misuse of the word. A canon, by definition, is officially designated. The term comes from religious usage and literally refers to the books of the Bible regarded as Holy Scripture (as opposed to apocryphal writings), or to ecclesiastical law. Anything that comes from outside official sources is, by definition, not canonical. So saying fans have their own canon is like referring to your own personal taste in food as USDA regulations. Fans have their own ways of defining Trek continuity, but it is completely wrong to use the word "canon" to describe those individual opinions.

 

[Trekarama]

I'm sure that nostalgia may play a part in my enjoyment, but speaking as someone who grew up in the late 60's and early 70's I enjoy TAS quite a bit. Some of the stories were not stellar, but entertaining nonetheless. As a Trek starved fan in 1973 the animated series filled a missing void. With most of the original cast's voices and many of the original series writers, the show had a feeling of authenticity. I know there is much talk about canon/not canon regarding the series. I personally don't put much emphasis on such concepts. I have greatly enjoyed many non-canon Trek stories, and have been bored to tears by some canon material. A good story is a good story whether it be a comic book, novel or any other media..canon or not.

As far as TAS being canon an interesting point is raised on the bonus feature included on TAS dvd set. Drawn to the Final Frontier is a short documentary about the making of the animated series. It includes interviews with Hal Sutherland (the director), DC Fontana, David Gerrold and others who worked on the series. At the moment I don't remember who is being interviewed, but the person mentions that the show had almost all the original cast, many of the original series writers, continuity through references to past series episodes, and finally most if not all scripts reviewed, and sometimes altered by Gene Roddenberry. As this person mentions, if that isn't canon what is?

 

[I am not Spock]

^ I agree with you. It has the virtual same cast as TOS (except for Walter Koenig, though he did write one of them), and many of the same writers and producers, etc. It is very respectful of its live action forerunner, and not significantly dumbed down for kids. I think it counts as canon. Gene didn't approve of TFF or TUC, but that didn't make them cease to exist, did it?

 

[bismarck_1892]

I also think that a lot of fans have their own canon. We ignore what we don't like, and state as "canon" those shows or elements of the shows which we like.

Which is like saying that the Moon has its own rutabaga. It's a complete misuse of the word. A canon, by definition, is officially designated. The term comes from religious usage and literally refers to the books of the Bible regarded as Holy Scripture (as opposed to apocryphal writings), or to ecclesiastical law. Anything that comes from outside official sources is, by definition, not canonical. So saying fans have their own canon is like referring to your own personal taste in food as USDA regulations. Fans have their own ways of defining Trek continuity, but it is completely wrong to use the word "canon" to describe those individual opinions.

That may be the case, but fans can and do pick and choose their personal canon, which in many cases may include books that they enjoy.

 

[Hober Mallow]

So yeah, TAS is canon as far as I'm concerned.

I may be remembering wrong, but according to TAS, wasn't warp drive created in the early 23rd century?

 

[drychlick]

tas was good ! not great but good. and i enjoy the show and it was a kid show that why it on sat noening. but who care i take any show with the oid timeline lol take care love dr

 

[WendellM]

I may be remembering wrong, but according to TAS, wasn't warp drive created in the early 23rd century?

A good question, with some possible on-screen TAS evidence. However, there are some other possible interpretations...

In "The Time Trap," Scotty sees a (rather-primitive-looking, vaguely-Enterprise-type) starship on the viewscreen and says, "Captain, there's the old Bonaventure. She was the first ship to have warp drive installed. She vanished without a trace on her third voyage." Spock then comments, "The crew's descendants may still be living, Captain."

This implies that there's been quite some time between the Bonaventure's disappearance and the TOS/TAS timeframe. Given that Spock only talks about the crew's descendants as possibly alive, and not the crew itself, and assuming that the younger crew were in their 20s and that life expectancy was in the 80s or more, that would seem to imply a passage of at least 60 years or so since the Bonaventure disappeared (perhaps around the start of the 23rd century). However, it could well be much longer (since "descendants" could imply multiple generations).

If one takes that longer view and remembers the "Where No Man Has Gone Before" mention of the warp-capable Valiant (which was lost 200 years before that episode), the Bonaventure would have to pre-date her (via a multi-generational interpretation of "decedents"). In that case, the longer view has no problem with established Trek history.

...

However, in "The Counter-Clock Incident," Sarah April (wife of Robert) states, "As the first medical officer aboard a ship equipped with warp drive, I'm afraid I had to come up with new ideas all the time." Since she's elderly but still alive, that might place the use of warp drive within the past 60 or so years. There would seem to be three possible responses to this.

One is to take her literally ("warp drive" vs "slower-than-light") in which case there's a contradiction (and, given the Aprils' advanced ages, the Enterprise would have been among the first ships with warp drive, in which case the "WNMHGB" mention of the Valiant makes no sense).

The second is to consider Jose Tyler's comment in "The Cage"/"The Menagerie" to the illusory Talos IV survivors: "And you won't believe how fast you can get back. Well the time barrier's been broken. Our new ships can..." This could imply a "true" warp drive that Sarah is referring to (different from the Bonaventure's/Valiant's "early" warp).

Lastly, once could focus on her use of the term "first medical officer." Perhaps on earlier warp-capable starships, medical personnel were all enlisted. This seems unlikely, but in that case, Sarah April would be the first medical personnel aboard a starship with a rank of ensign or greater.

To me, option 2 makes the most sense, followed by 3. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Is The Animated Series actually, you know...good?

No. It's a curiosity - fun if you're already a fan, but not as interesting as the least of the live-action Trek offerings and considerably less intriguing than several fan films I've seen.