The legacy of Star Trek: The Animated Series, 50 years on
www.bbc.com
Whether or not it's part of the Star Trek "canon", The Animated Series shares the show's vision for a utopian future where humans coexist peacefully with aliens, writes Swapna Krishna.

I was initially delighted to see BBC amplifying the celebration of TAS’ 50th anniversary. Then I read this piece.

Half a day later I’m still annoyed at the number of easily verifiable errors and that with the BBC’s trusted source credibility, the power that this piece can have to create uncertainty on settled issues.

First there are 22 episodes of TAS not the 20 claimed in the article.

Second, it’s established that Gene Roddenberry’s rejection of TAS as canon was overstated or at least inconsistent (and that Richard Arnold’s own view was a factor in magnifying this question in early TNG production). The BBC article overstates this as fact.

Third, it ignores the fact that Paramount as the rights holder has decided to treat TAS as canon. The article concludes with a statement that this continues as an open question. While it might have been fair to say that for a number of fans, this remains a question, it’s not accurate to portray this as an official position even just implicitly.

Anyone else irritated by this?

  • StillPaisleyCat@startrek.websiteOPEnglish
    6·
    1 year ago

    All the more reason not to perpetuate a question on which the IP owner has a settled position. It wasn’t neutral.

    I get that BBC has engaged an expert from the community, but in such a case the expert is under all the greater responsibility to ensure their neutrality. This isn’t presented as an opinion or perspective piece the way it might have been on the official site.

    Had they written that there has been a long debate about TAS status, in part due to documentable statements by and those attributed to Roddenberry by his representative (I.e. Richard Arnold), and that there continues to be many fans that have reservations about its canonicity, that would be factual and neutral. This isn’t.