Newsgroup: it.fan.startrek
Titolo: D.C. Fontana, TAS Canon e Sybok

http://trekmovie.com/2007/07/22/dc-fontana-on-tas-canon-and-sybok/
 Dorothy Fontana (aka D.C. Fontana) was with Star Trek since the beginning
as both a writer and Story Editor for Star Trek: The Original Series. She
had the same job for The Animated Series and went on to write episodes for
both TNG and DS9 (and even for the recent Trek game and New Voyages fan
series). Fontana is interviewed in the new ‘Focus on Trek’ from IDW
Comics. The interview covers a number of subjects, but her comments on the
often debated issues of canon were noteworthy. Regarding TAS and canon
Fontana says that Gene Roddenberry never took TAS seriously. She also does
not seem happy with the makers of Star Trek V who gave Spock a half brother
(details below)
Excepts from IDW ‘Focus on Trek’
    IDW: In today’s world, especially in a property like Star Trek, that
has seen stories told in movies, TV episodes, novels, comic books, video
games, e-books and even Internet-based fan media, too, the question of what
constitutes “canon” is very much an ongoing debate. The episode you
wrote for Star Trek: the Animated Series, “Yesteryear,” is the only one
that contains material that is considered canon. What makes it canonical
while the others aren’t?
    DOROTHY FONTANA: I suppose "canon" means what Gene Roddenberry decided
it was. Remember, we were making it up as we went along on the original
series (and on the animated one, too). We had a research company to keep us
on the straight and narrow as to science, projected science based on known
science, science fiction references (we didn’t want to step on anyone’s
exclusive ideas in movies, other TV shows, or printed work). They also
helped prevent contradictions and common reference errors. So the so-called
canon evolved in its own way and its own time. For whatever reason, Gene
Roddenberry apparently didn’t take the animated series seriously (no pun
intended), although we worked very hard to do original STAR TREK stories
and concepts at all times in the animated series. What freed us there was
the fact that we could do environments and aliens without the constraints
of sets, makeup and costumes that would have been difficult to do in live
action. The research company also worked on this series, again to keep us
within rules we had set up in the original series and to keep references in
terms of science/science fiction etc. accurate.
    IDW: And a follow-up to that question, what does “canon” mean to
you? Do fans put too great an emphasis on what is canon instead of just
what makes a good story?
    DOROTHY FONTANA: I like a good story— but there are certain basic
ground rules established which I don’t think can be easily tossed aside.
I really hated it when one of the features (STAR TREK V) came up with a
half brother for Spock when I had always insisted he had no other siblings.
But I guess it isn’t "canon" if I wrote it. Go figure.
The ‘Focus on Trek’ also has an interview with CBS Senior Director of
Product Development Paula Block (who is in charge of all Trek licensed
products). She too was asked about this issue of ‘canon’ and here is
her response
    PAULA BLOCK: “Canon” in the sense that I use it is a very important
tool. It only gets muddled when people try to incorporate licensed products
into “canon”—and I know a lot of the fans really like to do that.
Sorry, guys—not trying to rain on your parade. There’s a lot of
bickering about it among fans, but in its purest sense, it’s really
pretty simple: Canon is Star Trek continuity as presented on TV and Movie
screens. Licensed products like books and comics aren’t part of that
continuity, so they aren’t canon. And that’s that. Part of my job in
licensing is to keep track of TV and Movie continuity, so I can help direct
licensees in their creation of licensed products. It gets a little tricky
because it’s constantly evolving, and over the years, Star Trek’s
various producers and scriptwriters haven’t always kept track
of/remembered/cared about what’s come before. 
TAS getting more respect…but is it canon?
Gene Roddenberry may not have had a lot of respect for Star Trek The
Animated Series, but lately it seems to be getting a kind of resurgence.
Last year the show was finally released on DVD. In addition Pocket books
re-released the Alan Dean Foster novelizations of the episodes in new
omnibuses. This year the Star Trek Remastered team have already dropped in
a couple of TAS references, giving the show a sense of retroactive
continuity (Spock’s home town from TAS: "Yesteryear" is now seen in TOS:
:"Amok Time" and the new Antares in TOS: "Charlie X" is inspired by the
robot grain ships of TAS "More Tribbles, More Troubles") Now IDW’s
‘Star Trek Year 4′ series has included the TAS characters M’Ress and
Arex. Those characters also showed up in a Star Trek New Fronteirs novel in
2001. 
Just recently 
STARTREK.COM
 created a whole new section for TAS. There is a
new documentary and feature about the making of the seires. In addition
they have added TAS components (such as aliens, technology, and characters)
to the Library, but they are not going as far as to saying it is ‘fully
canon’ (nor are they saying it has no place in canon). The introduction
describes it thusly:
    Often viewed as the poor relation in the Star Trek canon, The Animated
Series — for the sake of argument — certainly has its own place within
the Trek-sphere.
Memory Alpha (the popular Star Trek wiki) long ago decided that TAS should
be canon and have included all the events and characters from the series
into the database (while still ignoring the novels, comics, games, etc.).
Their reasoning is that it was made by the same people and it was "too
important to simply ignore."
Last month the official Star Trek Magazine also devoted a 30 page special
section to TAS. This included behind the scenes articles, artwork and
sketches, as well as interviews with some of those involved (including one
done by yours truly with Fred Bronson - writer of "The Counter Clock
Incident"). I asked Bronson (who wrote the episode under the pen name Jonn
Culver) what he thought of TAS not being part of canon and his answer was
actually surprising:
    It didn’t bother me. I sort of felt that it exists in its own
universe. It is like DC Comics. They have changed origins over the years,
pretended things take place in ‘pocket universes’ and so on. Honestly
it didn’t bother me. I find it difficult to accept M’Ress and Arex as
part of canon. Gene later did say later that Robert April [captain of the
Enterprise before Pike, introduced in "Counter Clock"] was part of canon
and I never even went to him to discuss it. 
More:
STARTREK.COM
 new section on TAS
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/features/specials/article/66895.html
TAS at Memory Beta (non canon  Wiki)
http://startrek.wikia.com/wiki/TAS
Much more on the future of Trek comics and from D.C. Fontana in IDW’s
‘Focus on Trek’ 
VOTE: Is TAS canon?
TAS is in a canon grey area…so to you is it canon? Vote in the current
poll (right column) 
-- 
Jolan Tru, Filippo "Hytok" Simone
L'oracolo sampdoriano di Sunnydale
http://perestroika.altervista.org/
http://lacasadeglielfi.altervista.org/

Io enterprise non la metterei nel canon :)
Ah no.. scusate e' vero... enterprise non fa parte di star trek :)

Io enterprise non la metterei nel canon :)
La sistemeresti nel kodak?


 La sistemeresti nel kodak?
No, no.. canon (400d) :)