XPost: alt.startrek, rec.arts.startrek.current, rec.arts.tv
From: ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net
in article 4465c4f6$0$31649$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl, Wouter Valentijn at
liam@valentijn.nu wrote on 5/13/06 4:37 AM:
> ANIM8Rfsk wrote:
>> in article 4464d36a$0$31652$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl, Wouter Valentijn
>> at liam@valentijn.nu wrote on 5/12/06 11:26 AM:
>>
>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>> On 12 May 2006 05:50:12 -0700, "videonovels@yahoo.com"
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>>>>>> videonovels@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I >do< know is that Gene Roddenberry said ST5 is
>>>>>>> "apocryphal" and since Roddenberry is the Creator/God of Star
>>>>>>> Trek, that movie can not be considered canon. Neither can the
>>>>>>> Animated stories (again, per Gene's explicit command).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Several times the official canon policy link has been posted. I
>>>>>> think that one's clear enough. The Franchise owners call the
>>>>>> shots.
>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> So who was it who decided the Animated Trek is "officially" not
>>>>> canon? Rick Berman? Paramount CEOs?
>>>>
>>>> Neither. Animation is a different medium from live action. That's
>>>> what makes it not canon just as books being a different medium makes
>>>> them not live action.
>>>
>>> The medium itself has nothing to do with it. Some background facts
>>> from 'Yesteryear' *are* considered canon.
>>
>> Of course, it's not canon WHAT part of Yesteryear is canon.
>>
>
> From: http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/help/faqs/faq/676.html
>
>
> (Note: There are a few details from an episode of the Animated Adventures
> that have entered into the Star Trek canon. The episode "Yesteryear,"
> written by D.C. Fontana, features some biographical background on Spock.)
>
>
Right. Like I said. :-)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
