From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: epwise{at}yahoo.com
Subject: Re: The alt.tv.star-trek.tos FAQ

Graeme  wrote in
news:6e903643-91c2-4448-80dc-5933c9c803bd{at}googlegroups.com: 

>>>
> There is no rational, or logical, reason for excluding the animated
> series from canon and several reasons to include it. Sorry to have to
> bring an obscure concept like logic into a Star Trek group. 
>>>
> 
> Rational or not, the reason it's excluded seems to be because
> Roddenberry himself requested it.  As you say, a FAQ is a place for
> facts, so we have to report that fact whether we approve of it or not.
>  FWIW, no actual rule of logic is violated by excluding it, but it is
> arbitrary and senseless.  In my opinion and yours, but didn't you also
> say that opinions should have no part in this? 
> 
> 

I would say that would be true if someone other than Roddenberry was 
responsible for the show, but he initiated it, executive produced it.
Then years later he changes his mind?  No, doesn't work for me.
And from what I've heard the reasons come down to idiotic nonsense like 
Filmation produced it not Paramount.  Which may be good enough for 
Paramount but not for me.

>>All other Star Trek shows are pale imitations of this, the 
>>original and the most entertaining. 
>  
>>>FAQ is a place for facts not biased opinions. 
> 
> Again FWIW, I didn't write that bit.  That's a holdover from
> Conmoore's FAQ, which has never been deleted.  I don't see anything
> wrong with it, though.  It seems quite reasonable that a TOS group
> would consider TOS to be the best Trek Series.  FAQS are for
> Frequently Asked Questions, some of which may be opinion based.  The
> reason we're here posting about Star Trek instead of Baywatch is
> because of our biased opinion that Trek is a superior show. 
> 

Well, it's pretty safe to compare Star Trek to Baywatch.  There are many 
opinions about the various Star Treks out there and each Star Trek has 
its own fans who think it's the best.  Although the questions in a FAQ 
might deal with opinions the answers should be fact.  And sniping at a 
Star Trek because it's not TOS is no fact.

> 
>>>Also portrayed by Sean Kenney in "The Menagerie."
> 
> It's debatable whether Kenny "played" Pike or just sat there while
> people called him Pike.  But still, point taken.  I'll add that fact
> into the next version. 
> 
> 

Oh, come on.  You're picking nits.  Obviously Sean Kenney wouldn't sound 
like Jeffrey Hunter so they wrote him as not being able to speak.  Since 
this was the way the character was written who are we to say it wasn't 
Pike because he just sat there?  Kirk and Spock seemed to think it was 
Pike.  Good enough for me.
  
>>>You mean "voiced by." If you think the animated
series is not canon,
>>>then 
>  
> why list the characters here? 
>>>
> 
> Because Paramount's canon isn't necessarily ours.  This group's
> interests have never been limited to strict canon.  Novels, games,
> Viewmaster slides, the first 6 movies, you name it.  If it's got Kirk
> and Spock in it, somebody here is interested in it.  TAS has always
> been particularly popular, canon or not. 
> 
> To be more precise, I do mean "voiced by".  But it would be awkward to
> say (in every situation) that "Captain Kirk was either played by or
> voiced by William Shatner).  It's easier to just use the term "played
> by" to cover all situations.  "Voiced by" is more
precise, but "played
> by" is also accurate. 
> 
> 

Yes, when you're discussing TOS characters but Arex and M'Ress were only 
animated characters therefore only "voiced by."
 
>>>When was the pilot ever 90 minutes long? 
> 
> The unedited Cage is about 75 minutes long?  That would have fit in a
> 90 minute time slot in the 1960's days when they had about 5 minutes
> of commercials every half hour.  In these days, it wouldn't. 
> 

You didn't say with commercials.  Usually one speaks of filling a 
certain time slot or so long with commercials as to avoid confusion.
Anyway my VHS copy of "The Cage" specifically states 64 minutes which 
would only fill 75-76 mintues. (Which is not unheard of.  Desilu 
produced an "hour" episode of I Love Lucy which ran 75 minutes and cut 
into the broadcast of United States Steel Hour which lost 15 minutes of 
air time that night [November 6, 1957].)

 
> 
> "No. And you ignore the explanation given in Enterprise because you 
> obviously hate that series."
> 
> Obviously.  What is the explanation from Enterprise, BTW?  I wasn't
> one of the two or three people who followed it to the end. 
> 
> 

Sniping again.  Even the worst, most unpopular series on TV is seen by 
millions of people.  It's been almost a decade since I "followed it to 
the end" and other people/websites could explain it better but basically 
it was a genetic experiment carried out by the ancestor of the creator 
of TNG's Data played by Brent Spiner (back in the time frame of 
Enterprise) who experimented on Klingons and they lost the head ridges 
for a time (TOS) but regained them back later. The Klingons are not 
exactly proud of this happening.  So this not only explains the TOS 
appearance of Klingons but why Worf didn't want to talk about in on DS9. 
There may have been other experiments to return the look of Klingons to 
normal which may have explained why TOS Klingons appeared on DS9 with 
ridges.  As I said, I don't remember exactly but at the time it all made 
sense to me.


    
> 
>>>It was explicitly stated on an episode of an NBC series called Star
>>>Trek 
> starring William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy that Capt. April was the
> first captain of the Enterprise. 
>>>
> 
> I didn't create or approve of Paramount's definition of canon, I
> simply report it.  Believe it or not, they didn't ask my opinion.  And
> under Paramount's definition of canon, Robert T. April has no
> standing.  So the explanation in the FAQ is correct. 
> 
> You seem to be unclear on the definition of canon.  You say things
> like "if you don't think it's canon".  It doesn't matter what I think,
> it isn't.  The term "canon" means "That which Paramount
theoretically
> feels obligated to be consistent with in future scripts".  I say
> "theoretically", since they often bungle or deliberately ignore it
> (Enterprise, which you defended, did it frequently).  And things have
> changed since the FAQ was written.  Technically NONE of TOS is canon
> any more because the 2009 movie retconned the entire series out of
> existence. 
> 

Sorry, I assumed that this was your opinion.  You seem to go back and 
forth between "I think..." and "Paramount says..."
which makes it easy 
for you to say anthing and then back it up.  Even the mighty Paramount 
cannot erase history.  TAS was produced and aired just like TOS.  And, 
as stated previously, stupid reasons like "Filmation was in control and 
we weren't so it doesn't exist!" should not be taken seriously. Same for 
Roddenberry's "I wasn't in control so it doesn't exist!" or "I didn't 
receive enough money or praise so it doesn't exist!"
  
> 
> 
>>>The Cage was integrated into the The Menagerie because production was
> getting so far behind that they needed a new episode that was already 
> filmed in order to meet the NBC airdates
>>>
> 
> That fact is mentioned in the text you're replying to ("enabling the
> show to save a valuable week of production time") 
> 
> 

True, but you started off with (and edited it out here) with the reason 
being that The Cage was incorporated into The Menagerie because it was 
so costly.
 
>>>So Roddenberry saying the animated series is not canon shouldn't be
>>>taken 
>  
> seriously either. 
>>>
> 
> The existence of Paramount is not canon, yet in the real world, they
> set what canon is.  Reportedly they excluded TAS at Roddenberry's
> request, but you suggest that maybe they did it because they didn't
> produce it.  We don't know why they excluded it, only that they did. 
> If you're still unclear on the definition of canon, Wiki has a good
> article at: 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_canon
> 
> 

I understand canon.  Doesn't mean I have to agree with it totally or 
have to agree with Paramount simply because they're the ones who bought 
out Desilu. If Screen Gems had purchased Desilu then Sony would have the 
rights now and they might say something different about the same 
subject.
 
> 
>>>Which is where Gene Roddenberry got the name not who Kirk was named
>>>after 
> . 
> I hardly think Kirk was named after a character in a 1960s TV show. 
>>>
> 
> We're confusing the real world with the fictional one.  In the
> fictional world, Kirk is probably named Tiberius (but who knows, he
> might be named after a public figure of the future with the same
> name).  In the real world, Kirk is named after William T. Rice. 
> 


I'm not confusing anything. I was responding to what you wrote which you 
always edit out leaving only my response. Let me remind you:

>"WHAT DOES THE "T" IN JAMES T. KIRK STAND FOR?

>Where does it come from? Some might think it comes from the Roman 
>Emperor who ruled from 14 AD - 37 AD. Yes, but only indirectly. Really, 
>the name comes from William Tiberius Rice, the lead character in Gene 
>Roddenberry's earlier series, The Lieutenant." 

The question dealt with the fictional Star Trek Universe.  What does the 
T stand for, not its origin. One might presume that Kirk's parents did 
not see "The Lieutenant."  However, your answer "Some might
think..." 
which deals correctly with the fictional universe as the question did 
but in a negative way implying that anyone who thinks that is wrong.  
You follow that with an explanation that comes out the real world. You 
answered two different quesions ("What does the T stand for?" and
"Where 
did Tiberius come from?") in one answer, a mixture of the two universes 
which was vague and I chose to explain things correctly.

> 
>>>You can't pick and choose.  If details from one broadcast episode of
>>>the 
>  
>>>animated series are canon, then all the episodes are. 
> 
> Obviously Paramount feels they can pick and choose.  You can write
> them a letter and tell them they can't, but you probably won't get
> more than an autographed photo for your trouble.  I doubt they'll
> change canon for you.  They barely pay attention to their own
> definition any more.  I wouldn't worry about it though.  I doubt
> anything from Mosaic and Pathways will make it into a future script. 
> Someone here once opined that they only made those books canon to
> throw a bone to the author.  As for Yesteryear, nobody is even sure
> what biographical details about Spock are canon.  Is it canon that he
> lived in a city called Shi Khar?  Or that his selat was named I'Chiya?
>  Or that his mother's maiden name was Grayson?  Or that Vulcan has a
> month called Tasmeen?  Paramount has never said which details from
> that episode are canon and which aren't. 

Which shows that they, not I, don't understand canon. Which makes their 
dismissal of TAS ridiculous and arbitrary.

> 
> In one of the DS9 scripts, they mentioned a Klingon ship named the
> Klothos, as a kind of tribute to TAS.  By doing that, it means that
> it's now canon that a Klingon ship called the Klothos exists.  But
> that doesn't make it canon that that ship or any other ever got
> trapped in the Bermuda... er, DELTA Triangle with Captain Kirk.  Canon
> is often tricky and confusing, and even when you understand it
> perfectly, Paramount his liable to thumb their nose at it at any time.
>  That's one of the reasons why people here don't limit their
> discussions strictly to canon facts. 
> 
> 
> 
>>>
> Premiere is generally the spelling used when the meaning is
> chronologically "the first." The problem was that the first episode
> did not air in Los Angeles and apparently Los Angeles airdates were
> sometimes used for the source of airdates for the whole country. 
>>>
> 
> Maybe that's where the confusion came from.  I can say with certainty
> that Farthest Star aired before Yesteryear in at least some parts of
> the country.  Not sure about LA, but if it didn't air there, that
> would cause the confusion. 
> 
> I'm not sure about 22012.  Maybe it refers to an episode that was
> comissioned but never produced? 
> 

George Takei was running for some type of political office in L.A. in 
1973 and his opponent thought that voters hearing his voice on a 
Saturday morning show would influence voters so he used some type of 
"equal time" argument so that the Los Angeles station wouldn't show it. 
Sulu wasn't in the second episode broadcast ("Yesteryear") so that one 
was shown in Los Angeles.  
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux