What the Hell was going on after First Contact?!

[Anwar]

Yeah, that Kzin episode was just a Niven short story he had done for his Known Universe series, all he did was change a few lines of the script. Niven's series are in the 26th century (or sometime around there) so having the exact same timeline for the Man-Kzin wars in TOS (which was in the 23rd century) messes it up.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

TAS in not canon.

Prove it.

 

[HRHTheKING]

So I recently got my hands on TNG season one on DVD and I’m watching Encounter at Farpoint. It’s been so long since I’ve seen the uncut version I forgot some little things. On to my point… During the courtroom scene Data quotes a law from 2036 saying you can’t be tried for your race or forbearers to which Q says something to effect of, too bad this is a court of the year 2079 there is no such thing… Huh?!

So 16 years after first contact with Vulcans in 2063 Earth was still a major shit hole. It’s surprising the Vulcans didn’t just get back into their ship and move along. How long did it take before things “got better”? Is it one of the reasons Humans were sooo defensive in Enterprise.

I know the logical reason is in 1987 none of the history had even been written yet for Trek.

But for fun theorizing what do you all think?

16 years is still a relatively short period of time for a global revolution to be completed

Also, we don't know where exactly that courtroom was located.

 

[Timo]

No it didn't. All it established was that 2150 was the year that the last states that were not already part of UE joined, and that Australia was amongst that group.

Oh, sorry, that's exactly what I meant by "really coming together". As in "finally reaching the intended goal" or somesuch. That is, before 2150, Earth would not be united under single political leadership (or whatever the UE means), and after 2150, Earth would be thus united.

Niven's series are in the 26th century (or sometime around there) so having the exact same timeline for the Man-Kzin wars in TOS (which was in the 23rd century) messes it up.

But in Niven's universe, mankind had only recently gone interstellar when the Kzinti came in the 26th century. In the Trek universe, mankind has only recently gone interstellar when the Kzinti supposedly come 200 years before the 23rd century. The timeline is not all that messed up, really.

And in Niven's universe, by the 2500s, a global cabal has technologically and psychologically stagnated mankind for 300 years in hopes of quelling its urge for war. In the Trek universe, a WWIII has recently honed the fighting skills of mankind, no doubt in space warfare as well.

It isn't so far-fetched IMHO for Earth to fight against primitive space invaders (yes, you can have such a thing in the Trek universe!) just a few decades after Cochrane does the first warp flight. After all, by that time, Earth was already launching colony vessels and explorers left and right, to nearby and faraway stars. To have the Man-Kzin wars in the late 2000s would not significantly stretch the credibility of the Trek timeline, as long as those wars weren't an epic high-tech struggle. Just have the humans observe an inbound sublight fleet of ratcats or four, ascertain that they mean nasty business, and then effortlessly dispose of them by using the superior range and reaction time afforded by warp drive.

Or hell, have the Vulcans do that for us, and then claim credit afterwards! Sulu never claimed humans did it alone. And Chuft-Captain would never admit that the pacifist vegetarian Vulcans had had any part in that fighting.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Anwar]

But then the question becomes why the Kzin never attacked the Andorians, Vulcans or Tellarites decades earlier. They're just as close to the Kzin as we are and have been around a lot longer.

 

[Timo]

In the Niven version, the Kzinti just stumbled around until they encountered the first victim who knew how to fight back - that is, the great Übermensch us. And then they folded like wet cardboard.

If the Trek Kzinti are anything like that, then it would be mere coincidence that they would strike at humans first - and last. The first warp-capable species they bullied would automatically prove their undoing, so no repeat performances there.

We'd just have to assume that the Vulcans and Andorians didn't give a ratcat's ass about wannabe conquerors who moved from star to star on sublight ships and subjugated bronze age cultures, as long as these losers didn't bother any Vulcan or Andorian assets. And that's not too much to assume IMHO. Vulcans would have a hands-off policy anyway, perhaps originally because those hands had been burned in a Klingon first contact. And Andorians would simply have bigger cats to fry.

Although to be sure, the Kzinti could have fought against everybody in the neighborhood. Since it would always be one isolated fleet per one victim, the Kzinti could essentially lose their first war a dozen times. They'd never learn from it, as without warp drive or subspace communications, they couldn't learn about it.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Alidar Jarok]

TAS in not canon.

Prove it.

What do you want for proof? Paramount has said that the Animated Series in non-canon. I like it and think it should be, but it isn't right now.

 

[Captain Intrepid]

I think that Earth definitely became a protectorate of Vulcan at some point, but their reasons for denying advanced warp technology to Earth may have been driven by logic than out of any real sense to protect Humans. They may have believed that it was better to restrict Earth's access to the greater galactic community to prevent the still all-too impulsive Humans from starting interstellar incidents and disrupting galactic peace.

Or perhaps forcing humans to come up with such technology themselves from a fresh perspective would certainly bring about new discoveries.

 

[doubleohfive]

Um, didn't Troi tell Cochrane that within 50 years, poverty, hunger, etc were gone?

Call me crazy but I always took that to mean "It took 50 years."

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

What do you want for proof? Paramount has said that the Animated Series in non-canon. I like it and think it should be, but it isn't right now.

I've seen no evidence of this. Many episodes of the live-action shows have referenced TAS. TAS is included on the official Trek site. And my DVD set doesn't bear a label saying "Warning: Not Canon."

 

[Sci]

What do you want for proof? Paramount has said that the Animated Series in non-canon. I like it and think it should be, but it isn't right now.

I've seen no evidence of this. Many episodes of the live-action shows have referenced TAS. TAS is included on the official Trek site. And my DVD set doesn't bear a label saying "Warning: Not Canon."

CBS -- and before that, Paramount -- has often said that TAS is non-canonical. Just check out the Star Trek Encyclopedia and Star Trek Chronology if you don't believe us. Yes, there have been references to TAS in the live-action shows, but there have also been references to the novels in the live-action shows -- Sulu's first name being Hikaru was taken from a Pocket novel from the early 1980s before it was used in 1991's Star Trek VI, for instance -- but that doesn't make the novels canonical. TAS has also been flatly contradicted by later canonical installments -- references to the first warp ship, for instance. And, no, the DVD set doesn't contain a warning label because only psycho obsessive fans like us even give a shit.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

What do you want for proof? Paramount has said that the Animated Series in non-canon. I like it and think it should be, but it isn't right now.

I've seen no evidence of this. Many episodes of the live-action shows have referenced TAS. TAS is included on the official Trek site. And my DVD set doesn't bear a label saying "Warning: Not Canon."

Someone who knows the details better will have to be more specific. It was a memo (from 1992, iirc) from Roddenberry saying that TAS was non-canon. This has never been contradicted by Paramount. The memo was actually very harsh, saying that writers of Trek literature couldn't include elements of the Animated Series (although this may have been for legal reasons). Since then, however, it has only come to mean that writers aren't bound by the animated series or trek lit when writing a television episode or movie.

Startrek.com isn't an authoritative source on what is canon, but what they said was this:

"As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the real action series and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, the Animated Series and the various comic lines are not canon."

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Just check out the Star Trek Encyclopedia and Star Trek Chronology if you don't believe us.

All that says is that Roddenberry felt it wasn't canon. But Roddenberry also thought St V was apocryphal, that Harlan Ellison had Scotty dealing drugs and that the first two seasons of TNG was quality television. His personal opinion--and the fact that the Okudas shared it--has no bearing on what Paramount has decreed or not.

TAS has also been flatly contradicted by later canonical installments -- references to the first warp ship, for instance.

oh please, like none of the other Trek series contradict one another, or themselves.

 

[Sci]

Just check out the Star Trek Encyclopedia and Star Trek Chronology if you don't believe us.

All that says is that Roddenberry felt it wasn't canon. But Roddenberry also thought St V was apocryphal, that Harlan Ellison had Scotty dealing drugs and that the first two seasons of TNG was quality television. His personal opinion--and the fact that the Okudas shared it--has no bearing on what Paramount has decreed or not.

True. But Paramount never decreed that TAS was canonical, and continued to decree that it wasn't so--again, I cite the Star Trek Encyclopedia and Chronology, published well after Roddenberry's death, which continued to indicate TAS's non-canonical status. CBS, since inheriting Star Trek from Paramount, has not contradicted Paramount's stance.

TAS has also been flatly contradicted by later canonical installments -- references to the first warp ship, for instance.

oh please, like none of the other Trek series contradict one another, or themselves.

Yes, but there's a large difference between an unintentional contradiction or a retcon and an act of complete disregard for an entire series. Later canonical works have rather consistently disregarded most of TAS -- the only TAS episode I can think of that's been in any way confirmed by later Trek is "Yesteryear."

 

[Timo]

Then again, later Trek never referenced "Code of Honor" or "Elaan of Troyius", either. Are those noncanon?

And the Encyclopedia is fond of reminding the reader that it itself is noncanon...

It would take active measures to change TAS from the status of obscurity to a status of quotability, but it doesn't necessarily take any active measures to change it from noncanonicity to canonicity. And it seems such a change has taken place in the minds of some DS9 and ENT writers who quote TAS outright or hint at it. The role of official Paramount decrees in such a situation is diminished to virtually nil.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Sci]

Then again, later Trek never referenced "Code of Honor" or "Elaan of Troyius", either. Are those noncanon?

No, but, there again, they were never declared non-canonical, either.

And the Encyclopedia is fond of reminding the reader that it itself is noncanon...

So? The fact that it's a non-canonical work just means it isn't part of the fictional Trekverse. It doesn't make it an invalid resource for determining what productions are part of the canon.

It would take active measures to change TAS from the status of obscurity to a status of quotability, but it doesn't necessarily take any active measures to change it from noncanonicity to canonicity. And it seems such a change has taken place in the minds of some DS9 and ENT writers who quote TAS outright or hint at it. The role of official Paramount decrees in such a situation is diminished to virtually nil.

Er, no. A decision from CBS -- not Paramount; CBS owns Star Trek these days -- is the thing that makes something canonical or non-canonical. You can reference non-canonical works all you want if you're a DS9 or ENT writer, but that's not the same thing as actual canonizing it.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I could really give a shit what CBS or Paramount thinks. In my mind, if TAS is referenced at all, it becomes part of continuity, and that's the end of it.

 

[Sci]

I could really give a shit what CBS or Paramount thinks. In my mind, if TAS is referenced at all, it becomes part of continuity, and that's the end of it.

Which is fine for your personal sense of continuity. But canonocity is an objective, factual status defined by the owner of Star Trek, not a matter of subjective opinion.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I could really give a shit what CBS or Paramount thinks. In my mind, if TAS is referenced at all, it becomes part of continuity, and that's the end of it.

Which is fine for your personal sense of continuity. But canonocity is an objective, factual status defined by the owner of Star Trek, not a matter of subjective opinion.

Whatever.

If "canon" is really that important, though.. how long has it been since we've heard a word about this? Gene may have thought TAS wasn't canon, but...he's DEAD. What is Paramount's current attitude towards it?

 

[Timo]

You can reference non-canonical works all you want if you're a DS9 or ENT writer, but that's not the same thing as actual canonizing it.

But de facto it is. And de facto is the only thing that matters, because canonicity as a concept doesn't even exist except through its single practical implication: dictating what can be referred to on screen and what cannot.

Timo Saloniemi