TAS Canon
W.B. Dillon
I've heard that the Animated Series episode entitled "Yesteryear"
is the only that is generally considered to have any sort of canon.
Could someone please give me a brief summary of the episode? I'd
like to know what it is about this episode that made it an acceptable
addition to the canon Star Trek universe.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
William B. Dillon ~ You're not going crazy. You're just going
University of Akron ~ sane in a crazy world!
(330) 972 - 4804 ~
wdi...@uakron.edu ~ - The Tick
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kamin
W.B. Dillon wrote:
>
> I've heard that the Animated Series episode entitled "Yesteryear"
> is the only that is generally considered to have any sort of canon.
> Could someone please give me a brief summary of the episode? I'd
> like to know what it is about this episode that made it an acceptable
> addition to the canon Star Trek universe.
The gist of it is that the E-prise is at the time planet studing the
Guardian of Forever, and the scientists there had been visiting Vulcan,
and had accidentatly created a timeline in which Spock was killed.
Spock was on the planet at the time, and was thereby protected from the
time shift. He went back through the Guardian, and disguised himself
as...oh, some or other relative of Sarek's. Young Spock had been teased
over his lineage, and decided to set out of the walkabout-type deal
prematurely. Old Spock went with him to protect him, but in the end,
Young Spock corrected the timeline for him...I think
The main reasons it's considered canonical is that it was one of the few
TAS episodes to be written by one of TOS's writers(in this case, D.C.
Fontana), and that it gave the precise location, and if I remember
correctly, date, where Spock was born.
Ruediger Landmann
Kamin (sta...@mail.wm.edu) wrote:
: The gist of it is that the E-prise is at the time planet studing the
: Guardian of Forever, and the scientists there had been visiting Vulcan,
: and had accidentatly created a timeline in which Spock was killed.
: Spock was on the planet at the time, and was thereby protected from the
: time shift. He went back through the Guardian, and disguised himself
: as...oh, some or other relative of Sarek's. Young Spock had been teased
: over his lineage, and decided to set out of the walkabout-type deal
: prematurely. Old Spock went with him to protect him, but in the end,
: Young Spock corrected the timeline for him...I think
Nearly. Old Spock helps young Spock complete the Kahs-Wahn ritual, but
young Spock's pet sehlat is fatally wounded. Young Spock must also then
make a decision about chosing euthanasia for his pet.
: The main reasons it's considered canonical is that it was one of the few
: TAS episodes to be written by one of TOS's writers(in this case, D.C.
: Fontana),
In fact *most* TAS episodes were written by TOS writers.
and that it gave the precise location, and if I remember
: correctly, date, where Spock was born.
Only gives Spock's home city.
There is no logical reason why this is the only accepted TAS episode.
Without a doubt, it is the highpoint of TAS, but quality has never been a
benchmark of canon.
bla...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Kamin (sta...@mail.wm.edu) wrote:
[Re: TAS "Yesteryear"]
: The main reasons it's considered canonical is that it was one of the few
: TAS episodes to be written by one of TOS's writers(in this case, D.C.
: Fontana), and that it gave the precise location, and if I remember
: correctly, date, where Spock was born.
Maybe it's the only TAS episode that GR liked?
The general consensus is that it was 1) a good story, 2) gives much
background info into Spock's early life, and 3) does not contradict
TOS continuity.
===================== ====================================
BLAINE GORDON MANYLUK email: bla...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
EDMONTON, AB
Ruediger Landmann
Star Trek's animated series ran for just two seasons in 1973 and 1974, a
total of 22 half-hour episodes. Today it is all but forgotten, excluded
from the Star Trek's "canon" by most people. However, it is a part of Star
Trek's history despite attempts to discount and discredit it. As such, it
deserves, and indeed requires, more serious consideration than to be
arbitrarily written off.
Simply put, it is illogical to exclude TAS from the canon. TAS was, in
almost every respect, a continuation of TOS. The only significant
difference being the form in which the stories were presented. The voices
of the series regulars were provided by the original TOS cast, who
apparently took the project seriously. George Takei, in his autobiography
_To the Stars_ mentions Leonard Nimoy's campaign to have Filmation hire
Takei and Nichelle Nichols, instead of having James Doohan and Majel
Barrett provide voices for Sulu and Uhura. Apparently, Nimoy made this a
condition of his own involvement with the series. After Nimoy won the
battle, Filmation even signed Mark Lenard, Stanley Adams, and Roger C.
Carmel to reprise the guest star roles they had had in TOS. Many of the
writers came from TOS as well, and Dorothy Fontana returned as the series'
script editor. In all regards, then, TAS simply featured TOS stories
presented using animation instead of live action. The people who created
these stories, and the people who performed them certainly treated them
that way.
Possibly the greatest and most powerful objection raised recently to TAS'
canonicity is Roddenberry's reported opposition to its authenticity. The
power of this objection is reinforced by the Okudas' following of it as a
fundamental principle underlying the compiling of their _Chronology_ and
_Encyclopaedia_. The validity of this assumption is questionable, however,
and the inconsistency of how this principle has been applied will be
examined later.
Gene Roddenberry was the creator of Star Trek. It was his vision of the
future, and his intuitive grasp of what would make a highly successful TV
property that have given us the series and films that we have enjoyed.
However, as Star Trek developed, it ceased to be merely one man's vision.
Roddenberry provided a framework and a format within which other people's
ideas, visions, and stories could be presented. The currently popular
practice of referring to Star Trek as a "franchise" is therefore a very
good one, especially when compared with the way in which George Lucas
controls his Star Wars creation. Roddenberry simply never had the same
autocratic control of his universe. Therefore, the fact that Roddenberry
had little to do with the 3rd season of TOS has never been grounds for
anyone suggesting that it be decanonized. Simiilarly, Roddenberry's
involvement on the Classic movie series and with TNG was limited and these
are unquestioningly received into the canon. Furthermore, since
Roddenberry's death, it is no longer possible to appeal to his assent as a
mark of canonicity. DS9 and Voyager are canon despite the fact that
Roddenberry had nothing to do with them. Some fans have also felt that
ST:TMP, the feature film that Roddenberry was most involved with was the
least satisfactory of the whole series. The same is sometimes said of
TNG's first season. Roddenberry was also reportedly unhappy with the
militarism of STII-STVI, and so if his approval were so important to
canonicity, this alone could be grounds for rejecting ST:FC and much of
recent DS9. Clearly, Roddenberry's ideas are not in and of themselves
grounds for canonicity or non-canonicity. It should also be noted that for
years Roddenberry stood by TAS, and stories of how he agreed to the
Filmation proposal for an animated Star Trek after having rejected
many others are well known.
It is interesting to note, however, that not even the Okudas apply their
concept of canon consistently. Whist discarding TAS as non-canon, they
nevertheless includes details from "Yesteryear", and "The Counter-Clock
Incident". Furthermore, even though they note that his rejection of TAS
is based on Roddenberry's, they also note that Roddenberry regarded
parts of STV:TFF and STVI:TUC as apocryphal. Nevertheless, all details of
both these films are included in the Okudas' works. (It is reputed that
one of Roddenberry's problems with STVI:TUC was the rascism that
apparently existed in some members of Starfleet. If this were grounds
enough to de-canonize parts of the film, then presumably "Balance of
Terror" and "Day of the Dove" have to go as well. Both of these episodes
only work because of rascism.)
One of the other canon theories popular at the moment is the idea that
"canon" is simply a measure of how authoritative a given body of material
is in terms of how likely future Star Trek productions will regard it as
authoritative. This is one of the strongest arguments against TAS, and
yet as good as this principle of canon appears in theory, in practise it
is problematic. If it were to applied rigidly to Star Trek as a whole, the
internal inconsistencies of the various series and films would end up in
large scale de-canonizations. It would mean de-canonizing "The Cage" and
"The Menagerie" on the basis of Admiral Morrow's line in STIII:TSFS that
the Enterprise is twenty years old. At the same time, the fact that no
future Star Trek production will ever refer back to "Spock's Brain" (I
hope!) does not mean that this episode is not canon. TAS made an effort to
refer back to quite a number of characters and incidents from TOS, and in
doing so maintained a high level of consistency with what had gone before.
This is more than can be said of some other, more recent Star Trek
productions. There is also the possibility that the feline aliens seen in
the Federation council chamber in STIV:TVH were Caitians, and the shuttle
Copernicus in STV:TFF was named for the one in "The Slaver Weapon".
Finally, the last major objection that some people hold against TAS'
inclusion in the canon is one of quality. It is true that by today's
standards, the quality of the animation is truly awful, and was not
spectacular even by the standards of the time. It is also true that the
music and sound effects have not aged gracefully, but now seem extremely
corny. And it is true that some of the aliens and ships were uninspired.
This may be true, but quality is not the basis for much of Star Trek's
canonicity. If so, we would lose most of TOS' third season, as well as
most of TNG's first. The quality of the stories and of the writing in TAS
can stand proudly alongside much live action Star Trek. This is especially
true of "Beyond the Farthest Star", "Yesteryear", "The Slaver Weapon", and
"The Pirates of Orion". On the other hand, "One of our Planets is Missing"
is really no worse than "That Which Survives", and "The Counter-Clock
Incident" is really no more illogical than STV:TFF.
In short, there is no reason to exclude TAS from the Star Trek canon,
except in the interests of revisionist history. TAS may have been flawed,
but it was still Star Trek, and indeed better Star Trek than most people
seem to want to give it credit for.
Last updated: 1 April 1997
Jay
Kamin wrote:
> The main reasons it's considered canonical is that it was one of the few
> TAS episodes to be written by one of TOS's writers(in this case, D.C.
> Fontana), and that it gave the precise location, and if I remember
> correctly, date, where Spock was born.
Also, because it gave LOTS of information about the planet Vulcan e.g.
the way it looked, the way people lived etc. and that it had a tie with
TOS's "Journey to Babel" with Spock's Sehlat (Spock in Journey to Babel:
Except on Vulcan, the teddy bears are alive and have six inch fangs).
Yesteryear allowed them to actually show Spock's Sehlat. Also,
Yesteryear was basically the only episode when the Star Trek people had
almost complete creative control without the networks butting in. E.G.
The network didn't want Spock's Sehlat to die (It would upset younger
viewers) but D.C. Fontana fought to keep her script exactly the way she
wrote it.
Ruediger Landmann
bla...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
: [Re: TAS "Yesteryear"]
: Maybe it's the only TAS episode that GR liked?
What Roddenberry thought is irrelevant to canon
: The general consensus is that it was 1) a good story,
This may be true, but quality is not the basis for much of Star Trek's
canonicity. If so, we would lose most of TOS' third season, as well as
most of TNG's first. The quality of the stories and of the writing in TAS
can stand proudly alongside much live action Star Trek. This is especially
true of "Beyond the Farthest Star", "Yesteryear", "The Slaver Weapon", and
"The Pirates of Orion". On the other hand, "One of our Planets is Missing"
is really no worse than "That Which Survives", and "The Counter-Clock
Incident" is really no more illogical than STV:TFF.
: 2) gives much background info into Spock's early life, and
Whilst certainly very interesting, this in itself is no reason to pick it
out as canon whilst writing off the rest of the series.
: 3) does not contradict TOS continuity.
TAS made an effort to
refer back to quite a number of characters and incidents from TOS, and in
doing so maintained a high level of consistency with what had gone before.
This is more than can be said of some other, more recent Star Trek
productions. There is also the possibility that the feline aliens seen in
the Federation council chamber in STIV:TVH were Caitians, and the shuttle
Copernicus in STV:TFF was named for the shuttle in "The Slaver Weapon".
Ruediger Landmann
OK... I've revised my position slightly
: Kamin (sta...@mail.wm.edu) wrote:
: : The main reasons it's considered canonical is that it was one of the few
: : TAS episodes to be written by one of TOS's writers(in this case, D.C.
: : Fontana),
And I replied,
: In fact *most* TAS episodes were written by TOS writers.
Which is not true. In fact, it was half.
There were 22 episodes of TAS.
10 were written by TOS writers.
BUT
1 was also written by a TOS cast member (Walter Koenig)
and
1 was written by the director of 14 TOS episodes (Marc Daniels).
NOTE: another TAS writer has more recently gone on to write for VOYAGER.
Anyway, my original objection to "Yesteryear" being one of the "few" Tas
episodes to be written by a TOS writer still stands. Nearly half the
series was written by TOS writers. Additionally, Fontana was script
editor for nearly the whole series.
Ruediger Landmann
Jay (JPry...@netcom.ca) wrote:
[On why "Yesteryear" is accepted as canon by folks who don't regard the
rest of TAS as canon...]
: Also, because it gave LOTS of information about the planet Vulcan e.g.
: the way it looked, the way people lived etc.
"Amok Time" really gave far far more detail than "Yesteryear" did. In any
case, why should this be a basis for canon?
and that it had a tie with
: TOS's "Journey to Babel" with Spock's Sehlat (Spock in Journey to Babel:
: Except on Vulcan, the teddy bears are alive and have six inch fangs).
Quite a number of TAS episodes had "ties" with TOS episodes. Most notably
"More Tribbles, More Troubles", and "Mudd's Passion"; not to mention "Once
upon a Planet", "One of Our Planets is Missing", and "The Time Trap".
: Yesteryear allowed them to actually show Spock's Sehlat.
Again, why would this make the episode canon?
Also,
: Yesteryear was basically the only episode when the Star Trek people had
: almost complete creative control without the networks butting in. E.G.
: The network didn't want Spock's Sehlat to die (It would upset younger
: viewers) but D.C. Fontana fought to keep her script exactly the way she
: wrote it.
I don't doubt that this may have happened during the production of
"Yesteryear", although I have not before heard this story. OTOH neither
have I heard that the network "interfered" much with the rest of TAS.
Furthermore, even if the network had interfered, why would this mean that
TAS is/was not canon? Network interference had Number One removed from
TOS. This fact has no effect on TOS' canonical status.
Arthur Levesque
Ruediger Landmann (s30...@student.uq.edu.au) wrote:
RL>What Roddenberry thought is irrelevant to canon
Someone has to decide what is and isn't canon. While Roddenberry
lived, he claimed that power. With rare exceptions, canon has been
defined as everything we see on screen. Therefore, all movies/episodes
(except TAS and parts of STV:TFF) are canon, and all books (except for
occasional "blessed" chronologies/manuals and "Mosaic") are not. Since
Roddenberry's death, the "on screen=canon" rule has been uncontradicted
until Jeri Taylor's "Mosaic"; and there was a great deal of debate about
that.
RL>...the fact that Roddenberry had little to do with the 3rd season of
RL>TOS has never been grounds for anyone suggesting that it be
RL>decanonized. Roddenberry was also reportedly unhappy with the
RL>militarism of STII-STVI...
But Roddenberry himself never declared any of that non-canon; he
could have (as he did with STV).
RL>DS9 and Voyager are canon despite the fact that Roddenberry had
RL>nothing to do with them.
"On screen=canon".
RL>TAS made an effort to refer back to quite a number of characters and
RL>incidents from TOS, and in doing so maintained a high level of
RL>consistency with what had gone before...
True; however, when later live-action Treks were created (I believe
when they set about creating TNG) they made the decision not to include
TAS developments in the official continuity (even though such things as
the holodeck and a second turbolift to the bridge were introduced in TAS
and carried over into future Treks).
Personally, I think that with only a few exceptions (the largest
being the Kzinti in "Slaver's Weapon"), TAS could easily be canon.
There's no point in throwing away a lot of good material for a few
objectionable pieces.
--
/\ Arthur Levesque Smoketoomuch, 2A4W <*> King of the Potato People
\B\ack bubba bo bob baks...@nicom.com =/\= Alicia's Homey Bunny! (-O-)
\S\lash Heaven's Gate "a good way to get rid of a few nuts." -Ted Turner
\/ Hoopla, Denton! Cthulhu matata! [fnord] www.nicom.com/~bakslash
Nelson Lu
In article <5hr6uu$f...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
Arthur Levesque <baks...@nicom.com> wrote:
>Ruediger Landmann (s30...@student.uq.edu.au) wrote:
>RL>What Roddenberry thought is irrelevant to canon
>
> Someone has to decide what is and isn't canon. While Roddenberry
>lived, he claimed that power. With rare exceptions, canon has been
>defined as everything we see on screen. Therefore, all movies/episodes
>(except TAS and parts of STV:TFF) are canon, and all books (except for
>occasional "blessed" chronologies/manuals and "Mosaic") are not. Since
I don't think that the "official" books are canon either; in fact, the
Star Trek Chronology (by the Okudas) bent over backwards in declaring
itself non-canon (in saying that all that's in the book can be
contradicted by future episodes).
Ruediger Landmann
Plain and Simple Cronan (mal...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
:
: My biggest problem with considering TAS cannon is that it includes the Kzi,
: which, as any SF fan will tell you, come from Larry Niven's known space
: series.
Why should this be a problem? Just because the Kzinti are in the ST
universe, it doesn't follow that the whole known space universe has to be
as well.
Perhaps the ST universe and the KS universes are parallels, with the
Kzinti inhabiting both? (If you want a "treksplanation")
Plain and Simple Cronan
bla...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Ruediger Landmann (s30...@student.uq.edu.au) wrote:
: bla...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
: : [Re: TAS "Yesteryear"]
: : Maybe it's the only TAS episode that GR liked?
: What Roddenberry thought is irrelevant to canon
In case anyone misunderstood me, my point was that, for some reason, TAS
is not official canon - but "Yesteryear" is. I was giving some possible
reasons why that episode was an exception, in the eyes of whoever makes
such decisions. These may or may not coincide with my opinions.
: Gene Roddenberry was the creator of Star Trek. It was his vision of the
: future, and his intuitive grasp of what would make a highly successful TV
: property that have given us the series and films that we have enjoyed.
: However, as Star Trek developed, it ceased to be merely one man's vision.
I have very much respect for Gene Roddenberry and his contribution to ST
and televised SF in general. However, that did not prevent him, or Lucas,
or Spielberg, or JMS, from acting on personal idiosyncracies.
[material on GR snipped]
: Clearly, Roddenberry's ideas are not in and of themselves
: grounds for canonicity or non-canonicity. It should also be noted that for
: years Roddenberry stood by TAS, and stories of how he agreed to the
: Filmation proposal for an animated Star Trek after having rejected
: many others are well known.
My impression was that GR did indeed champion TAS during its time, but later
on felt that TAS was just a mid-1970s filler. Eventually, he considered it
an embarrassment, or at least something to be overshadowed by the movies and
TNG. Perhaps I am mistaken, or confusing GR with someone else at Paramount.
You did bring up a good point, about the TOS third season. Perhaps TOS,
being the "core" of ST, had to be treated as an indivisible unit WRT canon.
: : The general consensus is that it was 1) a good story,
: This may be true, but quality is not the basis for much of Star Trek's
: canonicity. If so, we would lose most of TOS' third season, as well as
: most of TNG's first. The quality of the stories and of the writing in TAS
: can stand proudly alongside much live action Star Trek. This is especially
: true of "Beyond the Farthest Star", "Yesteryear", "The Slaver Weapon", and
: "The Pirates of Orion". On the other hand, "One of our Planets is Missing"
: is really no worse than "That Which Survives", and "The Counter-Clock
: Incident" is really no more illogical than STV:TFF.
I never implied that other TAS stories were not good. What I said was that
GR (or Paramount, or "fan consensus") made that judgment, that "Yesteryear"
is good and other TAS isn't. I agree with much of your statement.
TAS also had convincing non-humanoid aliens, which other ST series sorely
lack; and a surprisingly good science background. Its main weakness was
that, being a 25-minute cartoon, the plots were aimed at a younger audience
than TOS, and there was often insufficient time for plot development.
As SF, TAS outperforms most of TNG, especially the first two seasons!
Arthur Levesque
Cronan Thompson (mal...@worldnet.att.net) mirrored my opinion:
CT>My biggest problem with considering TAS cannon is that it includes
CT>the Kzi, which, as any SF fan will tell you, come from Larry Niven's
CT>known space series.
Ruediger Landmann (s30...@student.uq.edu.au) wrote:
RL>Why should this be a problem? Just because the Kzinti are in the ST
RL>universe, it doesn't follow that the whole known space universe has
RL>to be as well.
Except that they make references to the number of Man-Kzin Wars in
the past, which do not fit in with the Trek timeline...
I think that this was just a case of laziness on the part of
Niven/TPTB... It wouldn't have been too difficult to change to Kzinti
into Klingons, or some generic Trek aliens.
Blaine Gordon Manyluk (bla...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca) opined:
BGM>As SF, TAS outperforms most of TNG, especially the first two seasons!
And is easily superior to Voyager.
Ruediger Landmann
Arthur Levesque (baks...@nicom.com) wrote:
: Except that they make references to the number of Man-Kzin Wars in
: the past, which do not fit in with the Trek timeline...
I'm not so sure... they don't seem any more problematic than the
Earth-Romulan wars
James K Nelsen
Kamin (sta...@mail.wm.edu) wrote:
: The gist of it is that the E-prise is at the time planet studing the
: Guardian of Forever, and the scientists there had been visiting Vulcan,
: and had accidentatly created a timeline in which Spock was killed.
: Spock was on the planet at the time, and was thereby protected from the
: time shift. He went back through the Guardian, and disguised himself
: as...oh, some or other relative of Sarek's.
He disguised himself as Selek--a distant cousin.
Young Spock had been teased
: over his lineage, and decided to set out of the walkabout-type deal
: prematurely. Old Spock went with him to protect him, but in the end,
: Young Spock corrected the timeline for him...I think
:
The time line was corrected when I-Chia (sp?), Spock's pet sehlat, was
injured saving young Spock's life. Young Spock then decided to have it
put to sleep which NBC considered highly controversial since this was
airing on Saturday morning TV.
: The main reasons it's considered canonical is that it was one of the few
: TAS episodes to be written by one of TOS's writers(in this case, D.C.
: Fontana), and that it gave the precise location, and if I remember
: correctly, date, where Spock was born.
Actually, several TOS writers wrote for TOS. Only the backstory is
cannon. This includes the name the city Spock grew up in, his pet (which
we first learned about in "Journey to Babel"), and other biographical
information because they help establish Trek history and because the
episode won an Emmy for best children's program. The main story line about
the Gurdian of Forever and the new time line are not considered cannon.
--Jim