The Animated Series

[Christopher]

Who cares if its canon? its a children's cartoon. Its fun. Its ok to have fun and not worry about sinning against the Trek Gods. Just watch the tv show.

Exactly. Canon is a minor issue that fandom has become overly preoccupied with since the '89 memo. It's not a matter of official doctrine or quality or moral worth; it's merely a descriptive label for differentiating the core material from other works based upon it.

Christopher is correct. All "canon" means is that the creators consider it official. That's why novels and comics aren't canon, because CBS has not decreed them as such. However, CBS could backpedal tomorrow and state they are canon, and we'd have to accept that because that's what the creators say.

Actually, no. As I said, the term "canon" only has meaning in relation to tie-in works. The original work doesn't have to be "decreed" canon; it is the canon by definition, because that is simply what the word means. It's not a seal of approval, it's just a description. The only decrees or statements that ever have to be made pertain to the status of supplementary material like tie-in books, comics, games, and sometimes spinoffs in other media, in order to clarify how they relate to the canon. As I said, the '89 Roddenberry/Arnold memo was mostly about clarifying the status of the novels and comics, with the animated series also being addressed as part of the overall clarification. And Lucasfilm's various declarations about canon over the years have all been about whether the tie-ins, and spinoffs like the Droids and Ewoks cartoons and the Clone Wars microseries, counted as part of the same continuity as the canonical films. The term only has meaning in relation to secondary works, so it usually only comes into play when discussing the status of such works.

Now, it is true that screen adaptations in a different medium aren't necessarily considered canonical. The older Star Wars cartoons and the live-action Ewok TV movies are not counted as Star Wars canon. Stargate Infinity, the little-remembered animated series, is not counted as part of Stargate canon. Conversely, the live-action Ben 10 movies aren't treated as part of that animated franchise's canon (or at least they're treated as alternate universes within the franchise's multiverse). But sometimes a different-medium adaptation is canonical, as with Star Wars: The Clone Wars and Rebels, or as with TAS as generally accepted today. (The first Power Rangers feature film is separate from the show's canon, but the second one is part of it.) So I can see how it can be a confusing issue.

 

[Vger23]

If TAS is canon, how can Magiteks of Megas-Tu be reconciled with TFF?

The same way the live action contradictions can be reconciled.

Haha! +1

 

[urbandefault]

Deanna repeatedly kissing Riker with a beard and then saying in Insurrection that she'd never kissed him with a beard.

Deanna was so giddy about her boobs firming up that she probably just forgot.

 

[Sector 7]

I saw every series in its entirety but have yet to watch the animated series. I guess the whole cannon/not cannon situation has me on the fence.

As my Granny would say, "It's time to shit or get off the pot!" Once you watch TAS, you will say it is great... canon or not.

 

[TheAlmanac]

The thing is, the term "canon" was never really heard in fandom prior to 1989,

This isn't even a little true.

You don't have to do anything more than read old articles from The Best of Trek or search Usenet groups devoted to the franchise from that period in order to see that. (In fact, I recall pulling up a random Usenet post from 1985 on a previous occasion here in order to demonstrate it, but it must be too old to show up in a list of my old posts...I'd be happy to just find another example to prove my point, though.)

Beyond that, I think these sorts of discussions online often ignore that there's now a generally understood definition of "canonical" as "what 'really' happened" in a fictional universe. It may be all "equally fictional," and it may have evolved from its original meaning--but when someone asks, "Is TAS canon?" I understand their meaning, and I can relate to how it plays a role in deciding whether to invest one's limited time/money/emotional energy into bothering with some aspects of a franchise.

To offer a different personal example, Lucasfilm's recent shift on the canonical status of Star Wars tie-ins has made me less interested in seeking out some older novels/comics that I hadn't read yet. If it no longer "counts," I'll invest my finite resources elsewhere.

 

[Christopher]

The thing is, the term "canon" was never really heard in fandom prior to 1989,

This isn't even a little true.

You don't have to do anything more than read old articles from The Best of Trek or search Usenet groups devoted to the franchise from that period in order to see that.

There were debates about what counted, but I don't recall the actual word "canon" itself getting that much play prior to the '90s. Granted, my experience of fandom pre-Internet was limited, but it wasn't a term I recall ever coming across. The debates were always there, but these days there seems to be far more preoccupation with the actual label, more of a belief that whether something is called "canon" or not is overwhelmingly more important than anything else.

Beyond that, I think these sorts of discussions online often ignore that there's now a generally understood definition of "canonical" as "what 'really' happened" in a fictional universe. It may be all "equally fictional," and it may have evolved from its original meaning--but when someone asks, "Is TAS canon?" I understand their meaning, and I can relate to how it plays a role in deciding whether to invest one's limited time/money/emotional energy into bothering with some aspects of a franchise.

That's true, but there are still some major myths about canon, like the one expressed just above that something has to be "decreed" as canon by some official studio source. That's an error, because canon is a term coming from fans and critics in the context of relating the core material to its derivative works. It's not something that the actual creators or owners of the core material ever really think about, except when they're called upon to clarify that material's relationship to its tie-ins.

To offer a different personal example, Lucasfilm's recent shift on the canonical status of Star Wars tie-ins has made me less interested in seeking out some older novels/comics that I hadn't read yet. If it no longer "counts," I'll invest my finite resources elsewhere.

I don't see it that way myself. If anything, in recent years, I seem to prefer rereading old Star Trek novels and comics that aren't consistent with canon or with the current novel continuity -- perhaps partly because I work within that continuity, so I'm able to enjoy the out-of-continuity material simply as a fan, just enjoy the story for its own sake and not have to worry about how it fits. But it's also because I enjoy the variety of franchises that do have multiple separate continuities, and find it fun to compare the different interpretations. For instance, the Godzilla franchise comprises seven different universes in the Japanese films alone, and part of the fun is getting to see how different they are from one another. Or, recently I watched the Return to the Planet of the Apes animated series from the '70s, which is on Hulu, and I enjoyed discovering how its interpretation of the PotA future was different from that of the movies and the live-action TV series from the previous year. (The cartoon's ape civilization was at a 20th-century level, aside from a lack of aviation.)

I guess I'm just the kind of person who enjoys exploring alternative views, looking at a thing from multiple perspectives. Other people prefer to pick one perspective and stick with it.

 

[bbjeg]

I saw every series in its entirety but have yet to watch the animated series. I guess the whole cannon/not cannon situation has me on the fence.

As my Granny would say, "It's time to shit or get off the pot!" Once you watch TAS, you will say it is great... canon or not.

I am going to make the effort to watch it, cannon or not. I enjoyed other classic cartoons using similar styles anyway, I'll probably have a great time with it.

 

[bbailey861]

Having said that, I too have always considered it canon, and have never understood the fuss made about it (in my mind it's the final two years of the original "five year mission" )

That is precisely how I have always looked at it as well. When TAS started, it was 'season 4' for me.

If TAS is canon, how can Magiteks of Megas-Tu be reconciled with TFF?

The same way the live action contradictions can be reconciled.

Exactly. I've never let it bother me. For me, I was always just happy to have a new story - I didn't have the need to reconcile things. That is still the way I feel with authorized books, fanfic, everything. I will be the first to admit though, that current spate of authors do a better than terrific job trying to keep everything pretty much lined up.

I saw every series in its entirety but have yet to watch the animated series. I guess the whole cannon/not cannon situation has me on the fence.

As my Granny would say, "It's time to shit or get off the pot!" Once you watch TAS, you will say it is great... canon or not.

I am going to make the effort to watch it, cannon or not. I enjoyed other classic cartoons using similar styles anyway, I'll probably have a great time with it.

I hope you like them. It's at the point now, where I put on a disc just to listen to the story. I don't have to glue my eyes to the screen; just listening to the voices gives me great pleasure. It's great that you can now get the boxed set for 20 bucks on Amazon. I hope you enjoy them.

 

[The Wormhole]

Well, regardless what the canonical status might be, or if that even matters, in answer to the OP's question, yes, TAS is worth it and anyone who considers themselves a completest Trekkie should check it out.

 

[RandyS]

I saw every series in its entirety but have yet to watch the animated series. I guess the whole cannon/not cannon situation has me on the fence.

Why? Wiether something is cannon or not should have no bearing on your enjoyment of it as a show. Just watch it at let it go at that. You'll either like it, or you won't. Cannon arguments are pointless.

 

[RandyS]

[
Still, I have to wonder why fans need an official announcement when we've had clear references to TAS elements in episodes like "Unification" and "Once More Unto the Breach" and when the Spock childhood scenes in the 2009 movie were a practical remake of scenes from "Yesteryear." The onscreen evidence itself shows that TAS counts; what further announcement is needed?

Well, again, it goes to Roddenberry---the creator---saying it wasn't canon. I don't think there would've been confusion if Gene hadn't made it a point to declare it non-canon in the first place.

It's a matter of clarification, especially since the literature of the time also declared it apocryphal, or non-canon. And then suddenly, it's canon. For those of us, like myself, that grew up with TAS being declared non-canon by the leading authority on Star Trek himself, it creates a sort of cognitive dissonance.

Only if you let it. I was three was TAS was created, and to me, its just as much Star Trek as any of it.

 

[Christopher]

Again: Officially, canon is a non-issue. The "policy" that excluded TAS only applied briefly two decades ago. TAS may not get mentioned much in live action, but it has been mentioned repeatedly, it's included on the official sites, it's streaming on Netflix along with all the other series and movies, and not that long ago it was streaming on Startrek.com as well. And the tie-in novels and comics have been totally free to reference it for quite a few years now. I can state with absolute certainty that the "ban" on TAS no longer exists in any way, shape, or form.

So can we resolve the question and just move on to talking about TAS as a show?

 

[Sector 7]

I saw every series in its entirety but have yet to watch the animated series. I guess the whole cannon/not cannon situation has me on the fence.

As my Granny would say, "It's time to shit or get off the pot!" Once you watch TAS, you will say it is great... canon or not.

I am going to make the effort to watch it, cannon or not. I enjoyed other classic cartoons using similar styles anyway, I'll probably have a great time with it.

I look forward to reading your impressions. Please, come back and share them here.

 

[TheAlmanac]

The thing is, the term "canon" was never really heard in fandom prior to 1989,

This isn't even a little true.

You don't have to do anything more than read old articles from The Best of Trek or search Usenet groups devoted to the franchise from that period in order to see that.

There were debates about what counted, but I don't recall the actual word "canon" itself getting that much play prior to the '90s. Granted, my experience of fandom pre-Internet was limited, but it wasn't a term I recall ever coming across.

Google Groups has a much worse search function than it used to (you can't do year-by-year searches anymore, for instance :/), but I've been able to find my own previous post on this site from when this came up before, which includes an example of "canon" used in this sense from the mid-Eighties.

Beyond that, I think these sorts of discussions online often ignore that there's now a generally understood definition of "canonical" as "what 'really' happened" in a fictional universe. It may be all "equally fictional," and it may have evolved from its original meaning--but when someone asks, "Is TAS canon?" I understand their meaning, and I can relate to how it plays a role in deciding whether to invest one's limited time/money/emotional energy into bothering with some aspects of a franchise.

That's true, but there are still some major myths about canon, like the one expressed just above that something has to be "decreed" as canon by some official studio source. That's an error, because canon is a term coming from fans and critics in the context of relating the core material to its derivative works. It's not something that the actual creators or owners of the core material ever really think about, except when they're called upon to clarify that material's relationship to its tie-ins.

I would counter that there's a reason Word of God is included (and became a term in the first place) on TVTropes--people put a great deal of weight (as the term implies) on official "decrees," and the examples on that site show that it often has nothing to do with tie-ins.

To offer a different personal example, Lucasfilm's recent shift on the canonical status of Star Wars tie-ins has made me less interested in seeking out some older novels/comics that I hadn't read yet. If it no longer "counts," I'll invest my finite resources elsewhere.

I don't see it that way myself.

*snip*

But it's also because I enjoy the variety of franchises that do have multiple separate continuities, and find it fun to compare the different interpretations. For instance, the Godzilla franchise comprises seven different universes in the Japanese films alone, and part of the fun is getting to see how different they are from one another. Or, recently I watched the Return to the Planet of the Apes animated series from the '70s, which is on Hulu, and I enjoyed discovering how its interpretation of the PotA future was different from that of the movies and the live-action TV series from the previous year. (The cartoon's ape civilization was at a 20th-century level, aside from a lack of aviation.)

I guess I'm just the kind of person who enjoys exploring alternative views, looking at a thing from multiple perspectives. Other people prefer to pick one perspective and stick with it.

Different franchises set up different expectations.

I also "enjoy exploring alternate views," but something like Star Wars (making a point of asserting one official timeline) is going to set me up with different expectations/desires than Godzilla (where there are still separate "official" universes) or something with a lot of reboots but an in-story explanation for different versions of the same characters (e.g. TMNT or any given DC/Marvel property).

Star Trek is different from these other examples (for me), but is clearly close enough to the Star Wars end of that spectrum for some people that they're going to make certain choices based on a decree from on high about how much some stories "count."

Again: Officially, canon is a non-issue. The "policy" that excluded TAS only applied briefly two decades ago. TAS may not get mentioned much in live action, but it has been mentioned repeatedly, it's included on the official sites, it's streaming on Netflix along with all the other series and movies, and not that long ago it was streaming on Startrek.com as well. And the tie-in novels and comics have been totally free to reference it for quite a few years now. I can state with absolute certainty that the "ban" on TAS no longer exists in any way, shape, or form.

Actually, here's a more direct way of addressing this question when it comes to tie-ins:

If something in a TrekLit work were to go blatantly against something established specifically in TAS (I can't imagine what that would be, but feel free to envision your own example), would it have to be revised to the same extent as if that happened with respect to one of the live-action series?

 

[EnriqueH]

[
Still, I have to wonder why fans need an official announcement when we've had clear references to TAS elements in episodes like "Unification" and "Once More Unto the Breach" and when the Spock childhood scenes in the 2009 movie were a practical remake of scenes from "Yesteryear." The onscreen evidence itself shows that TAS counts; what further announcement is needed?

Well, again, it goes to Roddenberry---the creator---saying it wasn't canon. I don't think there would've been confusion if Gene hadn't made it a point to declare it non-canon in the first place.

It's a matter of clarification, especially since the literature of the time also declared it apocryphal, or non-canon. And then suddenly, it's canon. For those of us, like myself, that grew up with TAS being declared non-canon by the leading authority on Star Trek himself, it creates a sort of cognitive dissonance.

Only if you let it. I was three was TAS was created, and to me, its just as much Star Trek as any of it.

I'm working on it!

Even though I have problems with the lack of energy in TAS due to the animation, the stories themselves are a treasure trove worthy of TOS.

I'm actually looking forward to reading Alan Dean Foster's adaptations...

 

[Christopher]

I would counter that there's a reason Word of God is included (and became a term in the first place) on TVTropes--people put a great deal of weight (as the term implies) on official "decrees," and the examples on that site show that it often has nothing to do with tie-ins.

Yes, but what I'm saying is that there's a belief that the word "canon" itself is some kind of magical label that needs to be officially appended to something before it "counts." Like the quoted comment just above that the TV series itself only counted as canon because some imaginary official at the studio had "decreed" it canon, as if there were some kind of formal certificate that had to be issued. No. That's rubbish. It's not an official seal of approval issued by the studio, it's a term of analysis that fans and critics use to describe something -- and that the studio or producers may occasionally bring up when addressing fans' and critics' questions on the issue. The show is the canon because it's not a derivative work, just as a continent is the land because it isn't the ocean. Calling it that doesn't make it that, it just describes something that already exists.

Star Trek is different from these other examples (for me), but is clearly close enough to the Star Wars end of that spectrum for some people that they're going to make certain choices based on a decree from on high about how much some stories "count."

Even so, nobody has to say that the core series itself "counts," because it's the baseline. It's automatically the canon, by definition. The debates only arise with secondary or derivative materials.

Actually, here's a more direct way of addressing this question when it comes to tie-ins:

If something in a TrekLit work were to go blatantly against something established specifically in TAS (I can't imagine what that would be, but feel free to envision your own example), would it have to be revised to the same extent as if that happened with respect to one of the live-action series?

Actually that did happen just recently: The TNG novel The Light Fantastic followed up on Harry Mudd in a way that overlooked the events of "Mudd's Passion." It wasn't entirely irreconcilable, but it certainly implied that "Mudd's Passion" hadn't happened, and evidently the licensing folks didn't have a problem with that.

On the other hand, the licensing folks had no problems with me explicitly referencing multiple animated episodes and characters in my own novels, or with Dayton Ward and Kevin Dilmore doing a direct sequel to "The Time Trap" in the SCE series, or with Peter David making Arex and M'Ress regular characters in New Frontier, or with D.C. Fontana using Arex in her The Enterprise Experiment comics for IDW. I think that referencing TAS is more common these days than overlooking it.

I suppose it's possible that TAS is treated as sort of "optional canon" -- nobody's going to say you can't count it, but nobody will get too up in arms if you overlook it. Still, I think it's the former that matters. People shouldn't be scared off of watching it or counting it because of some sort of official declaration, because there is no ban against it. At worst, it's just a sidebar.


Let me see if I can make a no doubt incomplete list of TAS references in the novels:

• "Beyond the Farthest Star": Aliens referenced in The Buried Age.
• "Yesteryear": Extensively referenced in canon and tie-ins. Of all TAS episodes, this is the one that most unambiguously did "happen."
• "More Tribbles, More Troubles": Followed up in flashback chapters of Excelsior: Forged in Fire. Robot ship design used as Antares in TOS Remastered's "Charlie X."
• "The Survivor": Only onscreen reference to McCoy's daughter, who's appeared in various novels and comics. Carter Winston featured in Myriad Universes: A Less Perfect Union, and in the '80s continuity's The Final Reflection. Vendorians mentioned in Terok Nor: Night of the Wolves and ENT: Rosetta. Rator III and Vendor mentioned in Star Trek Online. Engineer Gabler featured in Department of Temporal Investigations: Forgotten History.
• "The Infinite Vulcan": Phylosians referenced in several books and STO; Keniclius referenced in at least one Strange New Worlds story.
• "Mudd's Passion": Rigelian hypnoids mentioned in Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel.
• "The Time Trap": Klothos mentioned canonically in DS9: "Once More Unto the Breach." Sequelized in SCE: Where Time Stands Still. Devna is a featured character in Rise of the Federation. Cygnians (such as Magen) mentioned in multiple books including Forgotten History and Titan: Synthesis. Various interpretations of the Bonaventure mentioned in books and fan art.
• "The Ambergris Element": I think I referenced it in Forgotten History.
• "The Eye of the Beholder": Lactran zoo referenced in DTI: The Collectors.
• "The Jihad": Vedala referenced in Forgotten History. Em-3-Green's species featured (as Nasat) in SCE and elsewhere. Sord's species featured (as Gnalish) in Stargazer series and elsewhere. Skorr referenced in various novels. Indurite referenced in Over a Torrent Sea and elsewhere.
• "The Pirates of Orion": Choriocytosis mentioned in early novel The Covenant of the Crown (by episode author Howard Weinstein). Events referenced in Ex Machina.
• "Albatross": Events referenced in Ex Machina. Dramia mentioned in Andor: Paradigm.
• "How Sharper Than a Serpent's Tooth:" Ensign Walking Bear referenced in Crucible: The Fire and the Rose (indeed, I think Crucible makes at least a passing reference to every TAS episode).
• "The Counter-Clock Incident": Robert and Sarah April featured in multiple novels and stories.

So the majority of TAS episodes have been referenced more than once in various tie-ins, with a few, such as "Yesteryear," "The Survivor," "The Time Trap," and "The Jihad," having extensive influence. I'm sure Therin of Andor could add even more references. True, there are a few episodes that most writers are content to avoid referencing, like "The Magicks of Megas-tu" or anything about "Counter-Clock" besides the Aprils; but you can say the same about various live-action episodes. (Aside from one SNW story, nobody's ever tried to follow up "The Alternative Factor.")

 

[bbailey861]

So can we resolve the question and just move on to talking about TAS as a show?

Certainly.

My biggest beef with the show was the actual animation (and not using the original theme song just to save a few bucks). I just wasn't a big Filmation fan, although I will admit now to liking it more, simply for the fact that it is a clear representation of a distinct period of time in the animation business and of my youth.

On the whole, I liked the stories, and most of all I loved hearing the voices of the crew again.

I would be very, very happy, if a new Star Trek series were to come on the air as an animated one, using the technology of today.

 

[Christopher]

My biggest beef with the show was the actual animation

Which wasn't any worse than the animation on any other Saturday morning cartoon in the early 1970s, and was better than a lot of its contemporaries. In fact, TAS was one of Filmation's higher-budgeted shows, although a lot of that went to the cast. The only way it could've had better animation was, well, if it had been made a few years later, when the techniques of TV animation had advanced further.

(and not using the original theme song just to save a few bucks).

TMP didn't use the original theme music either (except under the log entries), and though the later movies quoted the Courage theme, we've had six different title themes in twelve movies, eight if you count the opening-title themes to First Contact and Insurrection.

I would be very, very happy, if a new Star Trek series were to come on the air as an animated one, using the technology of today.

Unfortunately, the markets for TV animation in the US today have gotten much narrower than they used to be. The only adult, prime-time animated shows are comedies (generally crude ones), and teen- and older-skewing action cartoons have had a progressively harder time getting support from networks and advertisers who want shows targeting preteen boys. We've seen it over and over with Young Justice, Green Lantern, Beware the Batman, The Legend of Korra, and the like. I can't see an animated Trek series getting on commercial television these days unless it did what TAS did not do, i.e. tailor it for a very young audience (and an overwhelmingly male one). And that's not a version of Star Trek I'd like to see. The only way I could see it working would be if it were made for a non-traditional outlet, like Netflix. Or direct-to-video like the PG-13-rated DC Universe movie line.

 

[Galileo7]

Agree. TAS=canon I always considered TAS as the completion of TOS five year mission.

Just to clarify: The only time TAS was considered "not canon" was for a couple of years around 1989-91. For one thing, Filmation had gone bankrupt and it was unclear who held the rights to TAS, so Paramount preferred to distance themselves from it. For another thing, Roddenberry at that late stage in his life had become very jealous of his ownership of Star Trek and was systematically shutting out everyone else's contributions (which is why D.C. Fontana didn't get the TNG co-creator credit she was entitled to as the co-writer of the series pilot). Since TAS had been Fontana's show rather than his, he wanted to marginalize it (even though he'd been its executive producer and it was the only part of the Trek franchise that he ever had full, unfettered creative control over). So Roddenberry issued a 1989 memo clarifying what was canon, and TAS was excluded.

But Roddenberry died in 1991, and the rights issue was resolved with Paramount Television Studios (now called CBS Studios) owning the rights to the entire franchise, including TAS. Pretty much ever since, it's been just as canonical as anything else, getting occasionally referenced in shows and films (particularly the events of "Yesteryear," but also the name Klothos for Kor's battlecruiser and a few other subtle nods) and frequently referenced in tie-in novels and comics, as well as being included in the "canon-only" reference sources Memory Alpha and StarTrek.com. The "TAS isn't canon" notion has been a dead letter for over two decades at this point, yet for some reason it lingers in fandom.

 

[Shawnster]

OK, it's like this. I knew that TAS wasn't considered canon for a while. However, I didn't know the "legal" wranglings around the series that prompted this decision. I always thought it wasn't canon because it hadn't been in as wide a circulation as TOS. As a result, not nearly the same amount of fans saw TAS as TOS. I was one of those fans. I had heard about the series, seen pictures in magazines and in Bjo Tremble's Concordance, but I never saw a single episode. I'd even read some of the Alan Dean Foster Log books that novelized the episodes.

Then Nickelodeon obtained the rights to the show and started showing TAS in like the late 80s or early 90s. Now, that was a really interesting time. After decades of eating, sleeping and breathing Star Trek, I was finally seeing new stories.

Well, new to me.

So that's why I thought it wasn't canon. Not because of egos or property rights or opinions or whatnot. I thought it was because not enough people had seen the show. Just like the comics aren't or weren't considered canon.