Talk:Star Trek: The Animated Series

Relevance?
I removed the below quote because it didn't fit in the section it was in and I wasn't sure of it's relevance to the article as a whole. If it deserves to be in another part that's fine.

Here is the quote taken from "Prodution" at the end of the second paragraph in that section: "Included is the mention of M'Ress being a Caitian. There is also a hand drawn map of Cait's location in the Lynx constellation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.110.232.104 (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Reason for cancellation
Can anyone cite the original official reason for the series not being continued? - Eyeresist 06:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC) do they really need one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.85.199 (talk) 12:32, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

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)

TAS won an Emmy for its short--but very strong--6 episode season from 1973 to 1974. Leoboudv (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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: .  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. 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)
 * This is a bit belated of a response, but I happen to agree with you. The only problem is Paramount -- the owners of Star Trek and who authorize what happens on screen -- don't, and they're apparently working on orders from Roddenberry himself. I'd be quite happy to see TAS declared canon -- and to be honest there really isn't anything in TAS that wildly contradicts what we've seen in live-action -- but the fact is Paramount calls the shots and anything the fans say is fanon, not canon. The 2008 Star Trek movie will be an opportunity for use to find out once and for all if Paramount is going to allow TAS to be canonized in anyway. The key is whether Pike is identified as the first captain, or any reference is made to April. If such a thing happens, it will either close the book on TAS' canon aspirations for good, or open the floodgates. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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 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)

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 again I 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, 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)

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).


 * Special Collector's Edition STAR TREK 30 Years Copyright 1996 Paramount Pictures Corporation
 * It has one small overhead bridge shot on the cover and the same image repeated, larger, on page 9. Split across pages 10 and 11 is this text.


 * "A DIFFERENT LIFE FORM: Exactly seven years after Star Trek's first show, the little-known animated version begins its two-season run on NBC on Sept. 8, 1973. Garnering an Emmy as the Best Children's Entertainment Series for the 1974-75 sea-son, the show features the voices of all but one of the original cast. (Walter Koenig wasn't part of the voice team, but he did write one of the episodes.)"


 * That is 100% of the paltry amount of information about ST:TAS in this book. (Page break in the middle of the word, season.) They didn't include it in the episode guide, skipping direct from the end of ST:TOS to the 1979 movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 07:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Theme Song
Why didn't they use the theme song from TOS? Were their copyright/legal reasons that they had to use an altered theme song? Or, did they feel that a slightly different theme song would give the animated series a fresh new feel? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.69.43 (talk • contribs).


 * I've also wondered why there's no credit for the music. Actually I haven't ... it seems someone was basically told "Come up with a take on Courage's theme that would be suitable for my nephew's bar mitzvah" and then found to his horror that it was actually used, and successfully got his name kept off the credits. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be very helpful to know why the original theme wasn't used. Perhaps also due to budget constraints to license the original work? I wonder if Courage was approached. Unfortunately, the TAS theme is a poor imitation of the signature music. St.Mark&#39;sPizza (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Kzinti on Enterprise?
Where did this statement come from - that the Kzinti were to have appeared in the fifth season of Enterprise? Unless someone can find a source for that, I think it should be removed as speculative. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Caitans
More Caitans then just M'Ress are 'appearing'. One plays a supporting role in one of the many Next Gen 'Time To Whatever' novels. Lots42 (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Other issues
I corrected the spelling of Spock's pet, I-Chaya.

Then I went to Wikipedia's page of Recent Changes and didn't see my change. I wonder why not? Thanks. 69.212.38.129 (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)NotWillDecker
 * You should check the individual article's edit history to see your edits. Your edit would have been scrolled off the first page of Recent Changes, at the default 50-per-page view, in about 30 seconds :P.--Drat (Talk) 08:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH
The "is it canon or is it not" issue is still ongoing. Someone added, correctly, that startrek.com now includes TAS in its library. Which is correct. However remembering that the website is run by a department that does not necessarily reflect official opinion, to state that this means it's canon is a violation of WP:NOR. Until Paramount or another body of authority, issues a press release saying "TAS is now canon", then the last official word we have remains that of Roddenberry back in 1991 - it isn't. All that's changed is the ban on TAS references no longer exists. It will be interesting to see if the new movie makes any TAS reference that might serve to canonize it. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Roddenberry has not been the official arbiter of what is/isn't canon since his death, which was 18 years ago, and your assertation is nothing more than your personal opinion. I'm going to restore the line. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it has anything to do with Roddenberry or not. There has been no official word from CBS regarding the canonicity of the animated series; it is misleading to say in our article that it definitely is.   Powers T 14:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lt. Powers. The line is purely speculative. Moreover the Characters from TAS have sepperate article to TOS. As for the Roddenberry and Canon: He disliked the films and is known to have considered them apocrypha (did I spell it right?). And he never said a word about DS9, VOY or ENT xD
 * What I say is: It´s not Roddenberry, it´s the Studio wh declares what is canon and what isn´t. Of course every fan can decide for himself, if he agrees. "Canon" in the studio-system simply means, if they pay reference events, technologies or other things of a story in future stories. Before it get´s too philosophical: No one in charge has officially announced, that TAS is now as canonical as the live action shows again. As such the bottum-line-statement in this article should at least be phrased to be more ambigious. 91.19.233.56 (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Vulcan bullying
Surely the first reference to "young Spock being bullied by Vulcan classmates" was in "Journey to Babel" and not in the animated series. Lee M (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Animation Quality section Nonencyclopaedic, reads like a debate
I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but the section that includes:

"There were also occasional mistakes ... These were typically isolated errors... Occasionally, though, parts of episodes would be animated at a near-theatrical quality level."

Could use a rewrite for consistency, maybe with a citation clarifying just how good or bad or consistent or inconsistent the art was or wasn't. --Thomas B♘ talk 04:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced material
Article has been tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert the below material with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

"Episodes" section
The intro paragraph states that some episodes were "contributions from well-known science fiction authors." As such, I feel that I must take issue with the last bullet section mentioning "The Magicks of Megas-tu" by a Larry Brody. My research shows that Mr. Brody is NOT a known or well-known science fiction author. He is, however, a known or well-known SCRIPT writer. Just because one writes SF scripts does NOT mean that person is an SF author {"SF author" meaning published in science fiction magazines, anthologies, and/or novels}. Granted, Mr. Brody is published, but NOT as science fiction.

Therefore, I think the bullet section mentioning him should either be removed or replaced.68.231.83.123 (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed it pending consensus to re-add the material. DonIago (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Is/Was this the first animated series by Paramount Pictures
I currently don't know if this is the first animated Paramount show or not, or if it's really for a young audience. Please respond to this, A.S.A.P., and quick! — Preceding unsigned comment added by XSMan2016 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Star Trek: The Animated Series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090119005234/http://tv.ign.com/top-100-animated-tv-series/96.html to http://tv.ign.com/top-100-animated-tv-series/96.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Lower Decks
Apparently an episode of the new animated series "may" make this series "canon". Such claims must be supported by reliable sources. For us to add such statements solely on the basis of our own interpretation is original research. That said, limiting any claims to strictly describing what's shown in the episode is fine; that's no different from a plot summary. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Composer links need to be fixed
The composer links need to be fixed. They take you to the wrong names. 2600:4040:B683:1400:D42E:C213:B322:7BC1 (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * They appear to be accurate. The composers were credited under pseudonyms, as explained at their respective articles. DonIago (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. 2600:4040:B683:1400:D42E:C213:B322:7BC1 (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

New Addition to References in Other Series?
Don't want to edit the article myself, but didn't the S4 Lower Decks episode "Caves" feature Vendorians who were introduced in TAS episode "The Survivor"? Lower Decks is doing such a great job of incorporating past story lines, and as mentioned this kind of makes TAS canon whether officially recognized or not. Probably just an update that hasn't happened yet as the Lower Decks episode is new, but I think we should add it. 67.168.121.181 (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)