Star Trek XI - spoilers!

[Bryancd]

The animated series is considered Trek canon.

[Rico]

The animated series is considered Trek canon.

Ahh, not really Bryan.  It's kind of in that limbo area.  Gene at least never considered it canon.

[Ktrek]

I was aware of the books he appears in but I don't consider the books canon. However, I forgot about the TAS episode and I might be willing to list that as a canon reference but Paramount to this day still insists that TAS is not canon.

Kevin

[X]

They were for a while and then they weren't, but stuff from them are still used in some things Trek. Here is the wiki on the show canon issues:

At the end of the first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation, all licenses for Star Trek spin-off fiction were renegotiated and the animated series was essentially "decanonised" by Gene Roddenberry's office. Writers of the novels, comics and role-playing games were prohibited from using concepts from the animated series in their works.[3] The Star Trek Chronology by production staffers Michael Okuda and Denise Okuda does not include the animated series, but does include certain events from "Yesteryear".[4] The timeline in Voyages of the Imagination dates the events of the series to 2269-2270, assuming the events of the show represented the final part of Kirk's five-year mission, and using revised Alan Dean Foster stardates.

Since Roddenberry's death in 1991 and the consequent firing of Richard H. Arnold, there have been various references to the animated series in the various live-action series. In the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "Once More Unto the Breach", Kor referred to his ship, the Klothos, which was first named in the TAS episode "The Time Trap". Other DS9 episodes to reference the animated series include "Broken Link", where Elim Garak mentions Edosian orchids (Arex is an Edosian) and "Tears of the Prophets" where a Miranda class starship is called the USS ShirKahr (sic) after Shikahr, the city from "Yesteryear". David Gerrold who contributed 2 stories to TAS, states in an interview that he personally believes:

" Arguments about "canon" are silly. I always felt that Star Trek Animated was part of Star Trek because Gene Roddenberry accepted the paycheck for it and put his name on the credits. And DC Fontana -- and all the other writers involved -- busted their butts to make it the best Star Trek they could. But this whole business of "canon" really originated with Gene's errand boy. Gene liked giving people titles instead of raises, so the errand boy got named "archivist" and apparently it went to his head. Gene handed him the responsibility of answering all fan questions, silly or otherwise, and he apparently let that go to his head.[5] "

More DS9 references to the animated series include the episode "Prophet Motive" where the title of healer is resurrected from "Yesteryear" as well. Vulcan's Forge is also mentioned in "Change of Heart", where Worf wants himself and Jadzia Dax to honeymoon there.

Most recently, the Star Trek: Enterprise episodes "The Catwalk" and "The Forge" included references to "Yesteryear", the latter featuring a CGI rendition of a wild sehlat. The remastered Original Series episode, Amok Time featured Shikahr in the background as Spock beams up at the episode's end. [6]

In more recent years references to the Animated Series have also cropped up in books. M'Ress and Arex, characters from the animated series, appear in the Star Trek: New Frontier novels. A race introduced in the episode "The Jihad", represented by M/3/Green, is named as the Nasat in the Starfleet Corps of Engineers e-book novellas. These stories feature a regular Nasat character, P8 Blue. The city of ShiKahr also appears in many books.

Amarillo Design Bureau, Inc. has — as part of its license for the Star Fleet Universe series of games — incorporated many aspects of the Animated Series into its works, not least being the inclusion of the Kzinti, although in a modified form. In addition FASA used elements from the animated series in its sourcebooks and modules for its Star Trek role-playing game.

If Star Trek Enterprise had been renewed for a fifth season, the Kzinti would have been introduced.[7] Starship designs were produced which closely resemble the Kzinti/Mirak ships from the Star Fleet Universe, a gaming universe that includes the boardgame Star Fleet Battles and its PC analogue Star Fleet Command.

On June 27, 2007, Star Trek's official site included information from the animated series into its library section.[8]

[Bryancd]

The inclusion of TAS refrences in other ST productions makes it canon, you can't pick and choose elements which are and others which are not.

[Rico]

The inclusion of TAS refrences in other ST productions makes it canon, you can't pick and choose elements which are and others which are not.

I kind of agree with you.  However, the "company line" has been it's a cartoon and it's not canon.  Just like the books and comics for example are not canon.

[Geekyfanboy]

Really I thought I read somewhere that the TAS was now cannon.

The inclusion of TAS refrences in other ST productions makes it canon, you can't pick and choose elements which are and others which are not.

I kind of agree with you.  However, the "company line" has been it's a cartoon and it's not canon.  Just like the books and comics for example are not canon.

[Bryancd]

Especially since the whole DVD release. Certainly that gives them a tremendous amount of legitimacy.....but now we are all OT!

[X]

Actually you can. If you only refer to specific names or places, they become canon, but the TAS events around introducing the things aren't.

Take the Forge ... while it was in TAS, it wasn't canon until mentioned in DS9. I think Gene said yesteryear was the only "canon" show that he wanted from TAS, but I don't remember where I read that.

I found it on Memory Alpha:

Star Trek: The Animated Series was not considered canon by Paramount Pictures and could not be included in Michael and Denise Okuda's reference books. However, they made an exception in the case of "Yesteryear" (or at least its backstory) because of its importance to the Star Trek timeline and elements of Spock's backstory established here have made it into official sources and future live-action episodes of TNG, so "Yesteryear" was mentioned in the Star Trek Chronology. The producers of later Star Trek series incorporated elements of "Yesteryear"'s backstory into canon: Spock's desert journeys are mentioned by Sarek in TNG: "Unification I", and T'Pol mentions her own kahs-wan in ENT: "The Catwalk". In addition, Vulcan's Forge is mentioned in DS9: "Change of Heart" and seen in ENT: "The Forge".

[billybob476]

Nice I completely derailed the thread!

[Rico]

Don't get me wrong guys, I'm a big, big fan of the animated series.  And I'm certainly aware of the bits they picked out of it over the years and mined in other projects.  April is even mentioned in the Enterprise episode set from season 4 "In the Mirror Darkly."  I basically consider it Star Trek, but again officially TAS as a whole isn't canon.  And we are not likely to hear Captain April's name in the new movie (but who knows - maybe we will).

Back on track - who is going to see the trailer and "Cloverfield?"

[The IC]

Me!


also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30Coklq_pA0

[darthcooley]

I have to say like the look of the ship.Yeah it's differant but one look & you know it's the Enterprise..

[Rico]

Some very interesting comments from Robert Orci (one of the movie writers) about the teaser trailer.  From trekmovie.com

The first teaser trailer for Star Trek (showing now with Clovefield) may be the biggest thing to hit Trek in years and has sparked quite a bit of interest and even some controversy. TrekMovie.com has conducted a 'post game interview' with Star Trek co-writer and executive producer Roberto Orci to help sort it all out. Orci talks about JFK, Nimoy, Earth vs. space construction, the new Trek 'Supreme Court,' and more....read below.

TrekMovie.com: How does it feel to finally see something you have done with Star Trek actually on the big screen:

Roberto Orci: It is both wonderful and terrifying at the same time. There is no going back now.

TrekMovie.com: In my review I noted that the trailer seemed to be trying to make the connection from today to the future of Trek...was that the intention?

Roberto Orci: Absolutely. This is us. This is who we are. This is real. This is maybe not so far off in the future as it used to be. In the 60s the cell phone was a fantasy. Now the communicator that Kirk had is not as advanced as my iPhone. It is a different millennium for God's sake. We are literally a century closer than we were before.

TrekMovie.com: You bring up the 60s. The trailer contains voices from the 60s space race, including John F. Kennedy. What was the thinking behind that? And is there some kind of JFK-Kirk link you are trying to make?

Roberto Orci: First of all, it has been written about that Kirk was in a way modeled after JFK. Like being the youngest captain ever, like Kennedy was the youngest President ever. Obviously the space race being kicked off by JFK is very much associated with Star Trek. It was also due to what we just discussed and linking it back to today. If we do indeed have a Federation, I think Kennedy's words will be inscribed in their someplace. He kicked us off. And on a third level it is a slight nod to Star Trek Enterprise, in that we are not blind to the fact that going back to some of the more historical aspects of Star Trek that haven't been covered in a while...that that is something that Enterprise tended to do as well.

TrekMovie.com: I have to ask...is the trailer actually going to be part of the movie itself?

Roberto Orci: No comment [laughs]

TrekMovie.com: Is that a new recording of Nimoy's voice?

Roberto Orci: Yes. He recorded that on set just between takes.

TrekMovie.com: How many takes did it take to get it?

Roberto Orci: Not very many [laughs]

TrekMovie.com: Did you guys realize that when you set the construction of the USS Enterprise on Earth that it would spark controversy?

Roberto Orci: Of course.

TrekMovie.com: So what is your guys logic for setting it on land?

Roberto Orci: Besides the thematic stuff we discussed, which is to connect it to today and make it clear. Firstly, there is the notion that there is precedent in the novels, etc that components of the ship can be built on Earth and assembled here or there. And the second thing is that the Enterprise is not some flimsy yacht that has to be delicately treated and assembled. The idea that things have to be assembled in space has normally been associated with things that don't have to be in any kind of pressure situation and don't ever have to ever enter a gravity well. That is not the case with the Enterprise. The Enterprise actually has to sustain warp, which we know is not actually moving but more a warping of space around it. And we know that its decks essentially simulate Earth gravity and so its not the kind of gravity created by centrifugal force, it is not artificially created by spinning it. It is created by an artificial field and so it is
very natural, instead of having to create a fake field in which you are going to have to calibrate everything, to just do it in the exact gravity well in which you are going to be simulating. And the final thing, in order to properly balance warp nacelles, they must be created in a gravity well.

TrekMovie.com: Where did that come from?

Roberto Orci: That comes from our creative license. No one can tell me that it is not possible that in order to create properly balanced warp nacelles they have to be constructed in a gravity well.

TrekMovie.com: Did the dedication plaque [which has 'San Francisco, Calif. written right on it] factor into your thinking?

Roberto Orci: Yes, that is part of where some of the canon, literary and other sources sparks from.

TrekMovie.com: But this does seem to fall into one of those canon grey areas where you guys made a call.

Roberto Orci: Exactly

TrekMovie.com: Looking at the reaction from this one little thing, are you now thinking about what it will be like for all the other judgment calls you made?

Roberto Orci: Not really. The main judgment call is going to be whether or not the theory of the movie works. And the theory sort of encompasses it...either you buy the movie or you don't. So we aren't going to sweat every little detail. We are going to sweat whether or not you buy our interpretation of it. But this is not a surprise. When we were constructing the trailer we knew that many were going to criticize it. We have our eyes wide open I think. But again, of course it is terrifying. I think I said on your site that in those times when canon is fuzzy, then we are 'The Supreme Court' right now and the court has to rule one way or the other.

TrekMovie.com: So who sits on the court?

Roberto Orci: It is the five of us: me, Alex [Kurtzman], JJ [Abrams], Bryan [Burk], and Damon [lindelof]

TrekMovie.com: Can you confirm that it was San Francisco and not Area 51.

Roberto Orci: I can only confirm that it is not Area 51.

TrekMovie.com: What is being conveyed by the "UNDER CONSTRUCTION" thing?

Roberto Orci: Both the literal interpretation that we are putting the movie together, but also to convey the idea that this is something that this is something that could be coming soon. It is the idea that The Federation may exist may exist. The idea that the future is not nearly as far off as it was in the 60s.

TrekMovie.com: And why isn't the title "Star Trek" in the trailer prominently?

Roberto Orci: No reason, other than it is our M.O. To make people ask 'what is it.' And those who know will say "it's Star Trek."

TrekMovie.com: While we are on end credits, why are Spock's parents (Ben Cross and Winona Ryder) listed, but Kirk's parents (Chris Hemsworth and Jennifer Morrison) aren't?

Roberto Orci: I guess they must have better agents.?


...and the conversation continues
Mr. Orci has been kind enough to interact with the TrekMovie.com community from time to time (and continues to claim he reads every post). So keep track of the talkback below...you never know who might show up....and maybe some of you lurkers and new visitors could join in

source:
http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/19/interview-orci-answers-questions-about-new-trek-trailer/#more-1466

[wraith1701]

Thanks for the info, Rico.

Regarding the construction of the Enterprise-

TrekMovie.com: Can you confirm that it was San Francisco and not Area 51.

Roberto Orci: I can only confirm that it is not Area 51.

Assuming that the components of the ship are being built in San Francisco, this is a nice nod to current Trek continuity.  :)