Spock's Brain is CANNON!?!?!?!?
No way. It's just bad fan fiction that leapt onto celluloid.
Yep. Hurry or it'll be gone!
We just got the Animated series........
- Thread starter Chrisisall
- Start date
No way. It's just bad fan fiction that leapt onto celluloid.
Everytime someone tries to talk about TAS, whether about the series as a whole or just individual episodes the issue of canon is raised.
No offense anyone, but who the fuck cares?
Isn't enough that you enjoy it or not? And if you do then you can consider it part of the Star Trek universe and that's that. Who cares what a pack of know-nothing suits might say?
No offense anyone, but who the fuck cares?
Isn't enough that you enjoy it or not? And if you do then you can consider it part of the Star Trek universe and that's that. Who cares what a pack of know-nothing suits might say?
I was just at Wal-Mart and the animated set was selling for $17.97.
Because a handful of fans like to use the term 'canon' to assume an authority over other fans and their opinions. It's a transparent short-cut to try to claim an air of authorty and superiority to other fans. It also shows a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of the point and useage of 'canon' without the scope of the franchise.
Maybe it's being priced differently in different regions? I'm in Massachusetts.
Except for the people who NEED to know the official line on what is REAL or not. Like the poster above (and peace be with you whoever you were) who considers TAS like impressionistic, artistic-licensed versions of real events that we can't quite get the literal versions of. Unlike the live action eps which ARE (?) the literal, trustworthy versions of "real" things. Not suggesting the person is delusional. But if we're gonna debate about, say, motivations of fictional characters, a number of us (not including myself, actually) want to know the rules of the game, so to speak.
It's a little like fans distinguishing between exhibition games and "real" games that "count." They're ALL exhibitions!! But some are counted as real and meaningful.
I'm with you. I like 'em. That's enough. I could care less if future writers working for the Paramount machine reference them or not, or even (based on later writing and JJverse) whether there are future writers at all. I've got the discs, there's a ton of novels I haven't even begun to olok into. So I'm good.
Paramount's having an official canon was so writers and editors of licensed tie-ins could know what "past" events to refer to.
It was never to stymie the regular TV writers. When the ST Office released its memo on canon in 1989, licensees were simply asked to refrain from making use of TAS, and from self-referencing each other, as FASA RPGs, DC Comics and Pocket Books had been doing.
My site needs updating but here's my attempt at tracking references to Filmation's Star Trek: The Animated Series in latter day Star Trek tie-ins:
http://www.geocities.com/therinofandor/TAS/TAS.html
But in 1989, when Filmation was being wound down as an entity, there wasn't a lot of choice. TAS was a production by Filmation, NBC and Norway Corp. Paramount was only ever its distributor in syndication. So it wasn't cut and dried that Paramount owned TAS in 1989. Of course, with DC Fontana and David Gerrold suing GR for co-creatorship of TNG at the same time, I can fully understand GR's lawyers urging him to distance TNG from TAS, and making DC Comics drop the use of M'Ress and Arex for TOS Series II comics.
Last edited:
Well im pissed! I actually left my cave today and went up to Wallyworld. No Animated Trek there. GAH!!!!!
Pain is a thing of the mind... the mind... can be... controlled.
Call other stores- it can't be ALL gone so soon!
^ CHRISISALL, but that would mean i would have to leave my cave again!
Fear not! I've got a bid in on one on ebay. And if i lose the bid, i'll just BIN one.
Fear not! I've got a bid in on one on ebay. And if i lose the bid, i'll just BIN one.
So a tv writer in the future (if there is one) could reference an event from a novel or comic?
And don't the novels reference each other?
Is there really no canon then, even in Paramount's corporate mind?
[Wait - I found it on another site. The significance of canon (live on-screen stuff) is that it CANNOT be contradicted by licensed tie-ins. A tv writer may reference such a tie-in if he or she wishes and the producers ok it.]
Last edited:
And these are the fans who, IMO, have turned Trek into, in the words of William Shatner, "a colossal waste of time." When you have a need to seperate the real fiction from the fake fiction, it may be time to reassess what it is about Star Trek that's really important to you.
Of course! It's already been done with a few names and concepts. "Hikaru" Sulu" ("The Entropy Effect" by Vonda McIntyre); "Nyota" Uhura ("ST II Biographies" by William Rotsler); Worf, a Klingon serving in Starfleet (probably inspired by the popularity of Konom in the DC Comics post ST II series). Some Klingon words, and the concept of the Black Fleet afterlife, from "The Final Reflection" made it into DS9. Even "Winona" Kirk is from the novels. And the idea that Kirk and Sam's Dad was "George Kirk Sr". The problem with canonical ST referencing a licensed tie-in important event is that only 1% of the audience will recognise the reference.
Yes, but this was specifically stamped out between 1989 and GR's death in 1991.
I believe I already said something similar.
Allow me to ask a clarification, since it seems canon-knowledgable folk are here.
Is this right? . . .
1. "Canon" in Star Trek means (live on-screen) events that should not be contradicted.
2. Licensed tie-ins may now refer to non-canonical events.
That is actually not very restrictive, which is probably a good thing. Man, if I were doing a religious studies Ph.D. this whole canon thing in Trek would be IT!
Is this right? . . .
1. "Canon" in Star Trek means (live on-screen) events that should not be contradicted.
2. Licensed tie-ins may now refer to non-canonical events.
That is actually not very restrictive, which is probably a good thing. Man, if I were doing a religious studies Ph.D. this whole canon thing in Trek would be IT!
Similar threads
