The Animated Series.
The Animated Series.
Most fans dismiss this part of Trek history as non-canon, a terrible mistake, and childish. I would expect some fans here have not even seen them. Even the Star Trek Chronology by Michael and Denise Okuda does not include material from the animated series. Everyone must make up their own mind to the authenticity of these episodes, but I would argue that they are closer to Star Trek than some of our more recent offerings.
Non-Canon?
Gene Roddenberry and Dorothy Fontana were both very actively involved with both planning and production. In later years Gene expressed regret at some elements in the animated series and instructed Paramount not to consider this series as part of the official Star Trek universe. Well, IMHO that's tough, he already made it. Also he says that he regrets elements about the films Star Trek: V and VI, but they ARE considered to be canon. You can't have it both ways.
A Terrible Mistake?
Why, because it's a cartoon? Just look at all the adult cartoons about now Anime, Simpsons, Futurama, South Park, King of the Hill, it was just ahead of its time.
Star Trek was always an obvious choice for animation. Not only did the medium provide opportunities to present stories and characters impossible within a live action TV budget, but also it was ideal for the younger Saturday morning audience.
They updated the ship, and were able to use more alien crewmembers that weren't readily available for live TV. The crewman with the long neck at Conn position is an obvious example. They did things that were impossible (at that time) to do any other way. It was not only pre-CGI but pre-Star Wars.
At the time it seemed unlikely that there would ever be another TV series, let alone 4 more and 10 films, so any new Star Trek at all was welcome.
Childish?
Writers for the animated episodes included people who had provided scripts for the original series. Fontana asked for submissions and didn't get a single turndown. Well-respected participants included Samuel A. Peeples, Stephen Kandel, Margaret Armen, Paul Schneider, David Gerrold, Marc Daniels, Walter Koenig, Larry Niven and Dorothy Fontana herself. Hardly a bunch of children's authors.
Fontana's story Yesteryear recalls Spock's youth and childhood, and here even the Chronology writers break their own rule to use this material, due to Fontana's pivotal role in developing the background to the Spock character in Trek.
Larry Niven's episode is an adaptation of his short story The Soft Weapon; only the characters names are changed to insert the Enterprise crew.
I liked this series. My own criticisms would be that they should not have allowed crossovers like the Kzin into the series (even though I am a Niven fan and like that story), and also that the science is dodgier (time reversing and matter shrinking.) But I think that it is definitely a part of Star Trek.
The Animated Series.
Most fans dismiss this part of Trek history as non-canon, a terrible mistake, and childish. I would expect some fans here have not even seen them. Even the Star Trek Chronology by Michael and Denise Okuda does not include material from the animated series. Everyone must make up their own mind to the authenticity of these episodes, but I would argue that they are closer to Star Trek than some of our more recent offerings.
Non-Canon?
Gene Roddenberry and Dorothy Fontana were both very actively involved with both planning and production. In later years Gene expressed regret at some elements in the animated series and instructed Paramount not to consider this series as part of the official Star Trek universe. Well, IMHO that's tough, he already made it. Also he says that he regrets elements about the films Star Trek: V and VI, but they ARE considered to be canon. You can't have it both ways.
A Terrible Mistake?
Why, because it's a cartoon? Just look at all the adult cartoons about now Anime, Simpsons, Futurama, South Park, King of the Hill, it was just ahead of its time.
Star Trek was always an obvious choice for animation. Not only did the medium provide opportunities to present stories and characters impossible within a live action TV budget, but also it was ideal for the younger Saturday morning audience.
They updated the ship, and were able to use more alien crewmembers that weren't readily available for live TV. The crewman with the long neck at Conn position is an obvious example. They did things that were impossible (at that time) to do any other way. It was not only pre-CGI but pre-Star Wars.
At the time it seemed unlikely that there would ever be another TV series, let alone 4 more and 10 films, so any new Star Trek at all was welcome.
Childish?
Writers for the animated episodes included people who had provided scripts for the original series. Fontana asked for submissions and didn't get a single turndown. Well-respected participants included Samuel A. Peeples, Stephen Kandel, Margaret Armen, Paul Schneider, David Gerrold, Marc Daniels, Walter Koenig, Larry Niven and Dorothy Fontana herself. Hardly a bunch of children's authors.
Fontana's story Yesteryear recalls Spock's youth and childhood, and here even the Chronology writers break their own rule to use this material, due to Fontana's pivotal role in developing the background to the Spock character in Trek.
Larry Niven's episode is an adaptation of his short story The Soft Weapon; only the characters names are changed to insert the Enterprise crew.
I liked this series. My own criticisms would be that they should not have allowed crossovers like the Kzin into the series (even though I am a Niven fan and like that story), and also that the science is dodgier (time reversing and matter shrinking.) But I think that it is definitely a part of Star Trek.
