VERY SHORT TREKS...

And maybe the makers aren't celebrating it. I don't know; have the makers of these Very Shorts said anything about why they're made, or addressed the contentious result from fandom?

I'm in total agreement with you in how animation can lead to a truly more expansive universe with creative liberties that could otherwise not be done.

Also agreed; TAS was never meant to be a kids' cartoon, but a less expensive way to tell new stories and in a more expansive scope that the live action original could not do.

But mainstream/general/casual-viewing audiences think it is. They also seem to be the target demographic. The new Trek series generally have been aimed in that direction. This reminds me of some of the slinging I've seen in other forums, which include the use of the word "gatekeeper". If fans aren't, all I know is that the fans don't make the show, some who are fans who make the show can do a bad job of making it (regardless of how popular it is or is not), and the makers still have to get large enough audiences - which means more than just a handful of ardent fans are going to want to ultimately feel included as well. If more of them, including many others who never cared for TAS or hated it, or even those who like it think this type of parody works, that's the format they'll stick with. It's hard enough a juggling act to begin with...

 

Wasn't it said that these Very Shorts are not canon as well? In which case, let them have all the noncanical fun they wish. it's harmless fun, and comedy is always subjective.

If they made a canonical show, in this format, what might it be like?

After all, TNG took more inspiration from TAS than what many seem give it credit for. Such as the holodeck, though the next time I rewatch, other aspects will stand out more as well, but I digress. For a noncanon bit of animation from 1973, some concepts and items did get repurposed for TNG.

 

Which is exactly the problem. The franchise should be past that crap by now. TAS is accepted and embraced as part of the whole -- we've got frequent references to it in Lower Decks, we've got Robert April in SNW, etc. So for something that's supposed to be celebrating its anniversary harkening back to the old condescending dismissals feels like an insult, not a tribute.

 

We just finished a season of Trek that had both a musical and crossover with a cartoon. These comedy bits are really just more of the same but because it's not canon they can use that as a chance to do a kind of humor you couldn't do in a canon show. Do we really need to pull that gatekeeping debate over what is some fun comedy bits that last maybe 5 to 10 minutes?

I do think they might be testing the idea of doing something bigger with Trek that isn't part of the Prime Universe. I think they also want to put something out their that might appeal to young people on Tick Tok.

 

It apparently is only a problem for you and a few other vocal Trek Fans.
They are doing quite well running up the viewing numbers on YT.

They are meant as a running gag, you don't like them, don't watch them.

As many have pointed out, modern Trek is branching out and taking on a multitude of genres, not everything is going to be to everyone's tastes.


And that's OK.

 

I'm not watching them. That's just it. I'm expressing my disappointment that something that's supposed to be a celebration of a show I've always loved is making me feel alienated instead. I mean, does that make sense to you? You're saying "If you don't like them, don't watch them" to a person who should have been exactly the intended target audience. Can't you see the incongruity there?

 

No, no incongruity because as I said, not all of the Trek being created today is going to be enjoyed by everybody.
This version isn't your cup-of-tea, so be it.

I've found them mildly amusing, but not something I would go out of my way to watch again.
The thing is, I'm not going to piss and moan about it because there's plenty of other new Trek stuff I can get more enjoyment out of.

Harping on one's dislikes is just a waste of time.

 

I'm struggling to respond to this. People since 1987 didn't consider TAS to be canon so... Fart jokes?

It's also not "over 30 years". (Since we're celebrating the 50th anniversary that's somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 years that is being left out of that "not canon" calculation.) It was accepted in Star Trek lore from 1973-1987. And then from 1993 it kept finding it's way back into real, serious Star Trek productions in various ways.

How often did post-TAS Star Trek contradict TAS? It's not 0, but it's not high either. No higher than TOS proper.

 

Well, not universally. Because TAS wasn't syndicated as widely as TOS, and because of cultural prejudices against animation, there were always people who didn't accept TAS or just weren't familiar with it. I remember an issue of DC's TOS comic from the early '80s where editor Bob Greenberger talked about how he counted TAS but writer Mike Barr didn't (I think it was that way around). And there were a number of '70s and '80s novels whose authors clearly didn't count or weren't aware of TAS -- for instance, Yesterday's Son revisits the Guardian of Forever two years after "All Our Yesterdays," but doesn't acknowledge "Yesteryear."

As for the '87 memo supposedly "decanonizing" TAS, that didn't really have any formal weight, since Roddenberry had been eased back to a ceremonial position by that point. Its only real impact (other than on fan opinions/beliefs) was on the tie-ins, because Roddenberry's TAS-hating aide Richard Arnold was in charge of tie-in approvals up until Roddenberry's death, and because the authors of some tie-ins like the Chronology chose to respect Roddenberry's wishes. But there were a number of references in the shows during the time it was supposedly "banned," like the "Yesteryear" nod in "Unification" and the mention of the Klothos in DS9.

Yeah, no more than any other series has been contradicted by later productions or by itself. One of the main ones is "The Magicks of Megas-tu"'s quick trip to the center of the galaxy contradicting DS9 and VGR, whose entire premises both rely on it taking decades to cross the galaxy without some kind of shortcut. But then, ST V has the same problem. There's also the "Slaver Weapon" Kzinti war backstory being irreconcilable with the history established in TNG through ENT.


Anyway, fandom is far too preoccupied with whether something is "canon." That's just a descriptive category that has no bearing on its value. All fiction is equally unreal, after all. There is no "right" or "wrong" version of something entirely imaginary. All that matters is how a work of fiction is regarded as a creative work, and if its intent is understood and appreciated. TAS was intended to be a faithful, mature continuation of TOS, not a parody or a dumbed-down version for children. Yes, it had significant technological and budgetary limitations in its execution, but so did TOS. And it's the one Trek series that has the most actors and writers in common with TOS, so in that sense it's the most direct continuation.

 

All the hand-wringing, sheesh.

Can't wait for the next one.

 

I'm sorry, but "she has dumped me for other men several times" is 100% canonical now and it's never going away.

 

I was calculating from 1973 to 2006 when the DVDs' came out and CBS proper started indicating that TAS was canon.

 

I don't consider any of the cartoons as canon except Prodigy but I consider them as canon potential in that you can pull stuff out of them and make it part of canon. Which is what they did with Lower Decks. I think Lower Decks exist in canon now but the canon version is a little less cartoonish than what we see in the canon. The cartoon is a more cartoonish look at the real crew and ship just like the end segment was a a cafroonish view of Pike and the Enterprise crew.

 

100% this. There's a big difference between a colorful style and outlandish, off-color jokes. There've been moments in both of the shorts that have aired that are positively gruesome and/or disgusting. Of course one CAN do that, but why would you choose to? Like what is even the intended audience here?

 

They were not that gruesome or disgusting. We are still talking PG-13 level of edge at best. Their wasn't even any cuss words or overtly sexual stuff. Everything that SNL could have played as a comedy bit if they wanted. If people think this was to edgy and I can only imagine how the Tarantino Trek movie would have gone over with some of the fans.

The intended audience is I think is those who like Trek or kind of know Trek but like something with a slight more of a edge when it comes to comedy. . Also I think most people know the most provocative humor these days is going to be on Youtube and Tik Tok. Some of the edgy humor that went out of style during the height of cancel culture is sort of making a comeback because edgy comedy tends to go through cycles.

These comedy bits while not super edgy do reflect the new trend somewhat but also in a format that doesn't really impact the positive vibes aspect of the franchise which you see in the tv and more canon approved stuff being made.

 

In the sense that a canon is the comprehensive body of works of a certain category, perhaps. But not in the sense of "undeniably happened in-universe," since canons ignore or rewrite parts of themselves all the time (e.g. "James R. Kirk" and Data's early emotional capacity getting retconned away, or DS9 & VGR ignoring ST V's 20-minute commute to the center of the galaxy).

Although since these are promotional shorts, I don't think they count as part of the canon, i.e. the complete set of essential/integral entries in the fictional series. They're supplementary aired material, like the interactive video games or the Hallmark ornament commercials or those old TAS public service announcements that were unearthed a while back.

 

I still wonder if this is a homage to TAS, or just a parody of it?

 

Why can't it be both?