Talk:Star Trek: The Animated Series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Nickelodeon
 Nickelodeon Portal
Star Trek: The Animated Series is part of WikiProject Nickelodeon, an attempt to better organize articles about and mostly related to the Nickelodeon television channel.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Star Trek Portal
TV This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Reason for cancellation

Can anyone cite the original official reason for the series not being continued? - Eyeresist 06:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emmy Award?

Didn't TAS win an Emmy award for best animated series? 23skidoo 05:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ya, it did. The award was for best children's show actually.. Infact its apparently the only Star Trek to actually win an Emmy. You can see part of the award ceremonty in the extras on the DVD set.69.225.0.102 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arex's Race

According to the FASA RPG, the three armed/legged race were called the Edoans. Could be integrated? 81.76.48.80 18:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting note, in the TAS DVD release, the term "Edosian" gets used throughout the Okuda extras, the video extras, and one of the producers of Enterprise mentions that certain slug-like leeches shown and mentioned in Dr. Phlox's Medical Bay are actually from Arex's planet, "Edoasin Slugs". That the refrence was completely intended.69.225.0.102 21:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry for being curious, but...

...I wonder if Star Trek: The Animated Series was the only incarnation to open each episode with the opening credits. Or did it open each episode with the teaser scene before the opening credits? Don-Don 22:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canon - Non-canon

Is there an official statement somewhere somehow about the fact TAS is not canon? Or is that just a long-time urban legend? Gbnogkfs 1 February 2006, 5:50 (UT)

No, it's true. Here's a quick link from startrek.com: [1]. It's not the best but it's the first one I found. You could probably find a more official statement of it elsewhere. Powers T 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually it appears Paramount is changing its stance on the series towards it being canonized again, with how it words things in pack-in booklet, and several articles on paramount. However, with the release of the Animated Series DVD release, studio seems to have changed its stance, and is now calling the animated series part of canon.[2][3][4] 69.225.0.102 06:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure that I read those articles (referenced) the same way you do.
From the first reference: Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, video games, the Animated Series, and the various comic lines have traditionally not been considered part of the canon. - and there is nothing defintive in that article to change that traditional stance.
From the second reference: It's a big question, perhaps not answerable here - and the remainder of the article (an editorial) merely covers the field of arguments for and against and is not a statement of Paramount policy.
From the third reference: Are you still in that camp that says the Animated Series is cheesy, non-canon, or half-baked? Of course you are entitled to your opinions, however wrong they may be! - certainly no statement of policy contained there.
You refer to the booklet and to the DVD extras, but without quoting anything definitive, and so until there is an outright statement from the production office to reverse Gene Roddenberry's official policy, the Animated Series remains non-canon. Incorporation of partial plot points, names or other elements from TAS into other (live action) series only canonises those things so incorporated, and not the entire TAS episode or series from which they came. Darcyj 23:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, first of all, it's CBS now, not Paramount. =) Second, the articles you cite appear to be primarily the opinions of Startrek.com editors, not official CBS policy. It's clear that the Startrek.com editors would love for TAS to be canon, but there's certainly been no official ruling that would overturn Gene's proclamation and years of precedent. Powers T 15:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps as a result of the above discussion, someone has changed non-canon references in the article to the past tense, but there is nothing that has been added to suggest its status has officially changed. I'm changing the wording back to present tense until something official indicates otherwise. 23skidoo 04:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


Personally, as far as the whole canon/non-canon thing goes, I agree with something written in The Agony Booth's review of Mudd's Passion:

No, the real reason I consider TAS canon is that it's a TV show called Star Trek, and it was made with the input of Gene Roddenberry, William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, Deforest Kelley, James Doohan, Nichelle Nichols, George Takei, Majel Barrett-Roddenberry, Walter Koenig, TOS story editor D.C. Fontana, TOS director Marc Daniels, TOS scriptwriters David Gerrold and Stephen Kandel, and TOS guest stars Mark Lenard, Roger C. Carmel, and Stanley Adams. Honestly, if that's not Star Trek, then I don't know what is. It would be tantamount to making an album with performances by John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr, produced by George Martin, engineered by Norman Smith and Geoff Emerick, with an album cover drawn by Klaus fucking Voorman, and not calling it a Beatles album.

Difficult to argue with that sort of logic. :D - 67.191.254.83 21:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] continuity section

this was pretty much garbage. I have removed. Some of the references I checked into simply didn't check out at the first time, so I added an actual explanation of the canon status, based on printed reliable sources at the Star Trek: The Animated Series#Canon status section. Having two sections about this, one containing badly sourced information and gives undue weight to a minuscule debate within fandom, and one containing actual information about what writers were and weren't allowed to do). The Spaceflight Chronology does not contain any such text as is attributed to it here. Startrek.com whilst it is an official site, the canon stuff about it editorial opinion, not a pronouncement ex cathedra. etc etc. Stardates mean bugger all in TOS, and its ludicrous to even consider them for dating. There was nothing salvageable in the section. What we might note is that the Voyages of the Imagination timeline puts TAS in 2269-2270 and Okuda doesn't leave any space for it. We can do that in a sentence or maybe two if we were being wordy. Morwen - Talk 20:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 3 YEARS

You wrote:

Hi. I see you made an edit to Star Trek: The Animated Series [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek:_The_Animated_Series&diff=95162587&oldid=95088444 reverted my removal of some stuff.
Now, one of the things you (re)introduced here was a claim that the Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology says that the Enterprise is brought back for a SLEP after year 3. I can find no such claim on the Spaceflight Chronology. The Spaceflight Chronology ends with the launch of the USS Enterprise. Perhaps I missed something: if you can tell me what page to look on that would be good. Morwen - Talk 20:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


I belive you are referencing the "Star Trek Chronology: The History of the Future by Michael Okuda and Denise Okuda." The book I am refering to is "*Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology (Fred & Stan Goldstein, with Rick Sternbach -- Dec 24, 1979)." This is different book, published before any of the subsequent series had been made. Jason Palpatine 00:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Nope. I have both books and am rather unlikely to get them mixed up, especially considering the massive amount of work I've done at timeline of Star Trek. And as I noted, Spaceflight Chronology's timeline ends circa 2200, just after the launch of Enterprise. Morwen - Talk 07:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


From "Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology," page 180:
"After completing three years of its last five year mission, the much-used Enterprise was returned to Earth dry dock, where it has recently completed extensive refitting and uprating."
Hope this helps. Best; Jason Palpatine 01:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. I appear to have a different edition of the Spaceflight Chronology, which doesn't have a page 180. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention, I shall see what I can do to source it. Nontheless, the section is still godawful and improperly sourced in many many other ways and you should revert yourself forthwith to remove it againI have removed it again. A list of things that the article claims now that are not correct:

  • the statements on startrek.com are an editorial opinion by a website and do not represent official policy by Paramount/CBS/Abrams.
  • it compares stardates on episodes of TAS vs TOS, without any sourcing for this comparison. this is original research. also, it's absurd, because stardates in the TOS era are meaningless
  • there is also no sourcing regarding a theory that TAS was a "second five-year mission". the only sources here for this paragraph are about the length of the mission depicted in TOS. for us to have this, we'd need to have some reliable source speculating that TAS was a second five-year mission. we don't have this. this paragraph is therefore speculation or original research, and should not be on Wikipedia.

Please check our policies about WP:V and WP:NOR. I removed this section for good reasons, and superficially adding sources doesn't fix its fundamental brokenness.

I replaced the section with the one at Star Trek: The Animated Series#Canon issues, so additionally, having 2 sections, both talking about whether TAS is canon or not, and where it is dated, is pretty non-optimal. If there are any specific points in the text deleted that you think can be adequately sourced to Wikipedia standards then please feel free to put these in this section, with appropriate wording : or maybe point out things to me and I will do them. but please don't revert this big wodge of text back there. Morwen - Talk 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly. Take a stress pill and think things over." -- HAL, 2001: A space odyssey"
In all frankness, I think this is a matter that should be discussed by others rather than you and me. Much of the material being covered in the section(s) in question fall outside verifiability. Fandom talk and individuals' opinions are really what is being covered in the area you called "godawful and improperly sourced".
You also wrote "different edition of the Spaceflight Chronology, which doesn't have a page 180." It would seem that what ever this book is, itis not the Spaceflight Chronology I am referencing. There was only a single printing.
I was asked for souces and I provided them. The novel and the chronology were both published at the same time and were considered canon at that time. They both give conflicting acounts of the Enterprise being recalled. The fact that the ship had undergone SLEP is established in tMP; both the novel and movie indicated this, dispite the fact that the term itself was not used literally. This sparked A LOT of debate among fans during the years between tMP and ST2. And it is still being debated today -- that was the point of the aforementioned "godawful and improperly sourced" material.
I was asked for souces and I provided them -- 'nuff said.
Additionally, you commented "it compares stardates on episodes of TAS vs TOS, without any sourcing for this comparison. this is original research. also, it's absurd, because stardates in the TOS era are meaningless." This information is in the original "Star Trek Concordance" by Bjo Trimble (Paperback - 1976).
Also, I have reverted the material -- what happens next I leave to the others. -- Jason Palpatine (speak your mind | contributions)

[edit] Trek's 30th Anniversary

I bought the Official Star Trek 30th Anniversary book because it had an image from ST:TAS on the cover. Inside it had one more small image and a mere one or two paragraphs on the series. I'd have to dig it out of storage to check, but I don't recall the book having an episode list for ST:TAS. If someone else has this book and could verify how little text there is and whether or not the book lists the episodes, then this abominable slight towards this series can be added to this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.136.145.239 (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/a/Talk%7EStar_Trek%7E_The_Animated_Series_4d13.html"