Star Trek: The Animated Series

From Fanlore
(Redirected from Trek animated)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
"Star Trek Animated" redirects here. For the fanzine, see Star Trek Animated (Star Trek zine).
Fandom
Name(s): Star Trek: The Animated Series
Abbreviation(s): STA, ST:TAS, TAS
Scope/Focus: Memory Alpha; Wikipedia
Date(s): September 8, 1973-October 12, 1974
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Star Trek: The Animated Series ran for just over a year.

The series used almost all of the original cast's voices (minus Walter Koenig), and animation allowed for more aliens and fantastical plots and sets.

The animated series introduced a three-armed, three-legged, long-necked, alien member of the bridge crew, named Arex, and a cat-like alien crew member named M'Ress.

the crew
a 1973 letter by David Gerrold encouraging fans support the show by passing this flyer on to fan clubs and other places, to write letters

Although the show never caught on with all fans, many elements within it carried over into fanon and canon. Just a few:

  • Amanda's maiden name, Grayson
  • the appearance of sehlats
  • Kirk's middle name was revealed in this series as Tiberius
  • Spock was bullied as a boy
  • the Recreation Room, a precursor to the holodeck
  • Klingon commander Kor's command of the battlecruiser Klothos.

The show was heavily promoted by D.C. Fontana, David Gerrold, and Gene Roddenberry in newsletters and letterzines, and was often accompanied by pleas to "give it a chance."

Some of this correspondence was very personal and employed a manipulation of fan loyalty and fan desperation to see their show return in any form. In the early 1973 open letter, STAR TREK is coming back as an animated series!, Fontana wrote: "Please do not prejudge the series or dismiss it as a "kiddie show" not worthy of your attention because you will be doing a great injustice to Gene Roddenberry and all the other talented people who will be working hard to give you STAR TREK again..." She also wrote in early 1973: "I will personally destroy the next person I hear dismissing "Star Trek" in animation as "just a cartoon" not worthy of their attention. I am working hard -- and so are all the other people I mentioned -- to give them "Star Trek" just the way it was." [1]

Another source of detailed info about the show is In Her Own Words: An Interview with Dorothy Fontana (1974).

an "open letter" by D.C. Fontana dated March 1, 1973, printed in Spockulations #3

A letter from David Gerrold in Star Trek Action Group #2 (June/July 1973) implored fans to watch the new show, saying "this is NOT a kiddie show."

See the transcription of the early 1973 speech: I'd like to talk about STAR TREK, past, present and future, and I don't know whether you're going to like what I have to say. by D.C. Fontana. Fontana also explained and defended an episode in the 1974 essay, Notes on 'Yesteryear'.

See David Gerrold's 1973 comments at You have asked what you can do to help bring STAR TREK back on the air..

In 1974, Gerrold had a lot to say about this series in 2-5YM Interview with David Gerrold.

In December 1973/January 1974, Gene Roddenberry, wrote "Executive Memo":

With respect to the "new" STAR TREK, I think we should be careful that we do not get the wrong idea about the animated version. First, it is not aimed to be a "kiddies' show", although it will appear during the Saturday morning childrens' hour. I asked for and obtained creative control and intend to see it presented, within the limits of animation, as STAR TREK was originally presented in the evening.

We all still believe that children are much more intelligent than generally assumed by the television industry and that the STAR TREK animation version should aim at the same quality as the original show.

Why are we doing it? First, we feel it will help keep STAR TREK alive and success in an animated version will only strengthen our chance of getting back on the air in the evening, or into the movie house as a feature release of STAR TREK. Next, the animation will allow us to do some special effects, characters and stories which are impossible in a live version. Finally, it is a source of income for the stars and other people involved in STAR TREK, all of whom would like to keep eating regularly while they wait for the original show to return to the air. Sincerely yours, GENE RODDENBERRY, Executive Producer, STAR TREK [2]

Is It Canon?

From an undated interview with David Gerrold, who contributed two stories to TAS:

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. [3]

Writer-producer D.C. Fontana discussed the TAS Canon in 2007:

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. [4]

From a fan discussion in 1978:

I have a suggestion. Let's disregard the animated series. They are so full of B.S.(like aging in two or three episodes plus shrinking, growing young... and then using the transporter to save themselves). I hate it when articles about ST treat information given in the animated series as fact. It doesn't make sense.

I agree with all of that except for one thing. I don’t think we should disregard the episode "Yesteryear" by D.C. Fontana. This was an excellent story which would have been worthy of the live action series. It's the only animated episode that wasn’t obviously written for the sub-teen Saturday morning audience. The story has integrity and deserves admiration. I think the only way ST fandom can accept the animated series is if we look upon its ideas as being optional and accept them only if they aren’t silly and illogical. [5]

Is It a Cartoon?

Despite all the frustration about the original Star Trek not winning Emmys fans felt it deserved, AND fans' insistence that the animated series was NOT a children's' cartoon, the animated series won an Emmy Nomination along with Captain Kangaroo, Fat Albert, The Cosby Kids, and Zoom. Zoom was the winner.

Is It for Children or Adults?

Fan Art

Fan Craft

Fans Online

Fan Reaction

1973

As far as the stories go, they are not entirely up to par with the original. A few resemble former episodes, and some take the crew to planets they have already visited. There is some kind of new monster every week. There are exceptions, however, and the 22 minutes of air time severely limits the story." She also points out that the Starfleet uniforms are the same, except that the men's trousers are grey instead of black and that the planet scenes are marvelous but the latter is due to the fact it's easier and cheaper to draw them than to build a soundset. [6]

If any of you make a habit of watching Saturday morning cartoons, (and I'm sure you all do) specifically NBC, you will notice that publicity is starting to be spread about the September line-up. It is a weird feeling to see your favorite television program, STAR TREK, receive the same run-around that the Saturday morning cartoons get. They skimmed over the animation as if it was the same relatively junkie stuff that is usually seen in that time slot. In this light, I think I should warn you that you will probably feel the same way. But don't be discouraged, hold out until September 8th and watch the finished product (preferably on a color television set, it will help the transition) and then make a fair evaluation. I think you'll be surprised. [7]

"Yesteryear" was a beautifully written work, showing a deep understanding of Star Trek's tenets, even if the cartooning and voices didn't do it justice. I thought, 'Gee, this cartooning will be pretty good - D.C. Fontana as story editor, good or passing

stories - it won't be bad." But, as usual, I spoke too soon. After my stomach settled, I rehashed what I had seen in my mind. 'The Lorelei Signal' -- never have I been so insulted in all my life!

That was the worst! How did that ever creep by Fontana??? There were so many glaring errors in that, that I forgot that I was watching "Star Trek" and not some other dingy sci-fic show. They sound like Vulcan marriage drums - and Spock starts panting and getting all around emotional (grin, grin, sickly grin!). I almost brought the roof down! YOU DUMMYS! WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO SPOCK!!! WEDDING DRUMS OR NOT, HE IS NOT IN PONFARR!!! He won't be affected. He'll be able to control it! He's got the kind of control that lets him play chess in the women's showers all day and never break concentration! As you can see, I was mad (that's capital M.A.D.). I mean really, all fantasy affection aside, logically (groan) Spock should not have been affected. But no, he goes messing around on the planet just like Captain Kirk incarnate. Then, then oh yes, then e somewhere calls Nurse Chapel - Christine - Oh Maripol save us!!! [note 1]

The Vulcans are cracking up! Oh, yes. Did you know that they only had four days to live (Spock a little longer of course)? Technically aging ten years a day, they should have had at least six days a week, McCoy going first. Didn't anyone ever tell the author that men in the time of the Federation live to be 130? I guess no one reads The Making of Star Trek anymore. Aside from other little things, like Uhura violating General Order One by going around and blowing things up to threaten the women, the icing on the cake is when the transporter is used to save our beloved officers. Voila: Instant immortality - just get your molecules rearranged when you get old and you'll be young again! Plastic surgeons? Who needs them? Etc... The implications of this are staggering - and the sort of mistake that wouldn't have been made on the original show. All in all, I am sick, mad and upset. That was a children's cartoon and if they keep this up, well who knows what will happen. Any intelligent STrekfan would have been offended at the glaring errors they tried to feed us. NBC said there will be no hope of getting back Star Trek is we kill the cartoon - well, if all we'll get back is _____, [note 2] who wants it back? We have seen that the cartoons can be handled intelligently, as the first and third ones weren't too bad, really, even though they could have been improved, so why do they have to hand us _____, and why do we have to like it? [8]

1974

Now that the animated Star Trek is well into reruns and is on a half hour later, most of you have been able to see quite a few of the episodes. A lot of you like it, but there are a few of you out there that don't like it or down tight hate it. To these people it is still a cartoon (SHUDDER!!) and think of it as such. Agreed it does have its bad points, but you must remember that it is only animation and you can only do so much with animation. Also the fact that its only a half hour long doesn't help it any. The biggest complaints that I have found with the animation is not with the story, so much but with the artwork. Things like spools of tape on the Enterprise (in the computer, "The Time Trap") and other things like pink tribbles (David Gerrold was not at all happy with that) and red photon torpedoes etc... I have also found that some of the plots used in the animation resemble those used in the Star Trek comic book "The Time Trap" and S.T. comic book number 15 "Museum at the End of Time" have the very same plot). Filmation is doin' a good job but are some thing that need work. We all hope (and if enough people write in about it) the animated Star Trek will come back next Season on a week night and be a full hour long. [9]

It is my opinion that this program would have received more acceptance had it not been for the propaganda campaign that proceeded it. I for one, would have watched it- with an open mind, regardless. But after the propaganda blitz of fandom's so-called 'big wigs,' I be came quite skeptical. After all, when too many people start touting something it must be pretty bad, otherwise it could probably sell itself.

They blew the 'quality' of the program out of proportion, desperately trying to convince us that it was our only salvation. Well, the product they were selling failed them. It just did not measure up to the expectations they painted for us. I feel that if it's a poor substitute in our eyes, they're responsible.

[...]

As a cartoon, it is equaled only by the late Sealab 2020 (also of NBC) in terms of quality, art work, scripts and con cepts. Both programs are obviously well researched and far outshine their Saturday morning peers on all levels. Cartoons are two dimensional renderings. Due to to this and budget limitations, their characters often (if not i always) appear stiff and wooden, i and backgrounds and movement sequences are constantly repeated to indicate time, size or distance. In comparison to the media we are used to, it is inferior and phoney. But we can't compare film and cartoons, they share no common bonds, excepting the film which records them. Therefore, as a cartoon, one must admit it is excellent. If, however, this were a movie cartoon, with a large budget and a staff of people (artists) who knew what ST was about, it could be better. As an artist, I know that a lot more could have been done with the media. The product was made without Star Trek* s main ingredient, Imagination. Everything looks alike, backdrops, 'bug-eyed monsters', crew men(?), everything. And worst of all, everything is done in the same colors, week after week. As Science Fiction, there is a slight problem. Most Sci-fi is in the form of film or books. Both media far surpass the TV-cartoon in quality and style. Therefore, as a Science Fiction entity, I feel it canft measure up quality-wise. Its main limitations, media and time, prevent it from adequately utilizing the firm Science Fiction foundation of its plots.

The only fault I find with most of the scripts, other than that they are either inadequately or too rapidly resolved, is that they are often redresses of established Sci-fi or old STs (eg. "One of Our Planets Is Missing") This in itself wouldn't be so bad, if they would do something novel with them. As they are now, the are predictable if you are a Sci-fi reader or an old STfan. The 'live' ST was rarely predictable (unless you're seeing it in the fortieth rerun or are watching a 3rd season one), why shouldn't its 'son' be?

[...]

Star Trek? They've scrapped values and philosophy for voices! It’s not the stars that most of us watch it for. It’s the total concept, which includes the Kirk/Spock, , Spock/McCoy, McCoy/Kirk/ Spock interactions and the divergent points of view and philosophies they represent. Without these key ingredients, you have a kiddie 'sci-fi' show that uses ST-like characters. If the characters don’t mean something, and aren’t people you can,, in some way, identify with, you can’t maintain viewer interest (hence Starlost’s failure). This goes for films and cartoons. This void in the cartoon makes most Strekkers as comfortable watching it as Rockerfeller [sic] would be living in a Ghetto.

For three years, plus the rerun years, our minds have been tantalized by the epic works of the late Gene L. Coon, the one and only Roddenberry, Miss Fontana, Harlan Elison [sic] and other masters of their field. We are used to quality of script and acting, so what did Paramount throw us? — a moving comic book. (An animated fanzine? — No, they would have better artwork.)

Even with live actors doing these scripts, they would fail. The key ingredients are missing. If you think about your favorites, you will note that they are usually the ones which were well rounded with the characters humanized in some way, and an excellent plot and storyline.

Yesteryear, Tribbles, Time Trap, The Slaver Weapon and a few others were, in my opinion, Star Treks. The rest merely Trekkie appeasement. (("Let them hear Spock's voice, maybe that'll stop them from writing those letters.))

[...]

What happened to The Loreli Signal? We've all been waiting for Uhura's turn at the Com. After all, she is ranking officer after Scotty. I feel that that program was a cop out. It had a good premise but was poorly done. Why, in the name of all that's logical, would she take over the ship and then wait for a rescue order, when rescue was her intent when she took over? It can't be explained away as the Illogic of Woman, because her training as an officer superceeds [sic] it. The female of the species may be illogical, but what she did was ridiculous. 'Nough said. [10]

1975

Despite super-limited animation and terrible cases of underacting from the cast, the series was an intelligent one, compared to its competition. Compared to the old series, it suffered dreadfully. [11]

Basicly [sic] I dispise [sic] the cartoon, but since it would take this whole newsletter to fully explain why, I will only give some basic points I have against it. 1) Stories have to be crammed into less than half an hour's worth of time. 2) The majority of episodes are just re-hashes of the old (live Star Trek) episodes. 3) Aliens no longer look intriguing or fascinating, just cute or funny looking. You can no longer relate to them. 4) Where are all the exotic women that Kirk used to...er... make friends with? 5) The show. according to Lincoln Enterprises, is not supposed to be an average Saturday morning show, so why did they put it on Saturday mornings"! Why not prime time (as was the case with a cartoon called "Wait Till Your Father Gets Home")? Overall, Star Trek, as a cartoon, has lost the magic it had...it's just not the same anymore, and it is certainly not a replacement for the real thing! [12]

1976

After reading about Gene Roddenberry's problems with Mr. Spock, I find it rather amusing/surprising that two other aliens should be introduced into the series. (I must admit that I would like to see Lt. M'Ress in a live action version.) I think that, with the live action series the actors were able to pull up a not very good story and make it at least interesting, but with animations this, is not possible. This means that the stories have to be good to start with; however in 22 minutes this is going to be very difficult to maintain. It would be very interesting if someone would write "The Making of the Animated STAR TREK" so that the problems and difficulties met with in the production of the live action and animated versions could be compared... From talking to people who are not STAR TREK fans as such but do watch the programme (yes, such creatures do exist!) I gather that the response to the animations has not been as good as the response to the live action version. However since my survey (?) was carried out while I was working in an office and most of the people I asked were female it could merely be the absence of William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy and the rest of the cast in the flesh! One thing which surprised me, I had read the "Log One' book before I saw the episodes and I was pleased by the way Alan Dean Foster had kept to the programme. What did not please me was the introduction by the original writer of several pieces of equipment which wore not in the original series. (Like the Bridge Defence System and the Life Support Belts.) [13]

1979

As for my dislike of animated Treks, I admit it all began at an Equicon, when DC Fontana announced their existence by saying "their" (Filmation's) animation was superior to Hanna Barbera's et. al., which knowing damn well the reasons it was called "limited animation" in the first place, I took immediate and ever-lasting umbrage at it. Also, her insistence that they weren't "cartoons" but "animated episodes" rankled me no end as well. Hell hath no fury like a Bullwinkle fan scorned. [14]

1983

I was reminded of the days of long ago when they were a link with cast members, sorely missed when the Star Trek episodes ceased to be shown on TV here. Speaking personally, and appreciating the work that has to go into the making of these things, I never could raise any enthusiasm for animated films of any kind, and after listening to the familiar voices for a while I would switch off. George was initially very excited about the idea of an Animated Star Trek, and thought there was tremendous potential there, but it was never developed as it could have been. The excitement filtered away. There was not much to rave about in making the recordings either, and no contact with the rest of the "crew", unless you passed one of them going out from a recording session as you were going in. The work was done in a sound proof booth. Wait for your queue say your piece allowing time for the responses - and go on your lonely way having helped to make a Star Trek story come to life in almost total isolation.

[...]

As there seem to be no further hopes of repeat episodes on TV, in between the Star Trek movies, it would be something to console ourselves with if we could hear the voices again, (I don't have video). Come back Animateds, all is forgiven. [15]

1985

Way back in 1973 something happened that promised STAR TREK a whole new image and a whole lot of new viewers. Avid fans were already disgruntled because the best thing that had ever happened to science fiction on television had been pulled, despite all their efforts, and the news of this deviation shocked their already overburdened systems.

The gallant Enterprise and her noble crew were to ride again, albeit in a slightly different guise. Filmation Studios announced the new, animated STAR TREK - to a chorus of dissenting hisses!

No longer the slightly paunchy captain with care-worn features, or the 'lived-in' face of the cynical but much-loved doctor. Instead the well-known characters created by Gene Roddenberry were to be miraculously transformed into cartoon -characters by Filmation Studios, from which Batman, Superman, Aquaman and other delights of the wonderful world of cartoons had emerged.

Within the obvious economic limitations Filmation Studios claimed it made up for the limited animation (which it did at least admit to) by the quality scripts, voice tracks and art designs used. It was even suggested - somewhat rashly - that the cartoon might surpass the original, as there would be no patently fake studio creations representing alien landscapes.

A number of the most zealous "Trekkies" were so incensced at the idea that they launched numerous petitions and crusades to get the project taken off the air before it had even had time to draw breath.

But there were some consolations. Filmation Studios had had the good sense to engage William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, Deforest Kelly and a large proportion of the original crew to record the voices. At least if you closed your eyes while it was on you could pretend it was the real Gene Roddenberry was engaged in a creative capacity "so as to ensure that the show is faithful enough to the original to satisfy the purists... Star Trek will be Star Trek, with only minor alterations. They dare do it no differently."

Many of the programme's original scriptwriters were engaged, with Dorothy Fontana as script consultant. They wanted to avoid the usual hackneyed drivel, - comforting in some small measure, I suppose.

So what was STAR TREK to lose? In America N.B.C. television had it slotted into the Saturday morning line-up at peak viewing time - 10.30 a.m. A lot of the violence that might have been in the original evening shows had to go - after all, we mustn't corrupt the children (who revel in blood and gore,) must we? And "Trekkies" were also told that there would be no real sex element to speak of either - same reasoning.

However, in spite of these "minor alterations," it would still be the same STAR TREK we all knew and loved, and not just another stereotyped kids' cartoon show to watch over cornflakes and the week-end papers. But alas, all these brave promises came to nothing. As far as most people were concerned, the twenty-two animated STAR TREK cartoons, which were screened in Britain in 1974, were a dismal failure.

The series was transmitted twice, except for three episodes; "The Magicks of Megus-Tu," "Bem", "Mudd's Passion."

Perhaps they thought the public might grow to like them the second time around! The British rights, once held by Paramount T.V., have since expired and thankfully there are no further plans to revive them. The cartoons have hopefully bitten the dust once and for all.

For in spite of all of the efforts to recapture the spirit and spontaneity which made STAR TREK a veritable institution in itself, there is really very little to commend it to STAR TREK fans.

What we are left with is not much more than a stereotyped kids' cartoon show, best watched with the television turned off! [16]

Further Reading and Meta

Notes

  1. ^ This is not a reference to the influential Moroccan artist-designer-filmmaker. The ancient Vulcan deity Maripol was the creation of Mack Reynolds for his Whitman tie-in novel Mission to Horatius (1968, reprinted in 1996 and again in 1999). Maripol was considered to be responsible for natural disasters, and could be placated only with the blood of twins, whose hearts were torn out on his altar. Fans may have used "Maripol" to substitute for "God", as in Monica Miller's "Maripol, What a Terrible Dream!" in Tricorder Readings 4, Fall 1972.
  2. ^ The underline is a stand in for "crap," "bullshit," or "shit."

References

  1. ^ from Despatch #15
  2. ^ printed in a flyer for Equicon #2, reprinted in Star-Borne #11/12
  3. ^ The David Gerrold TAS Interview
  4. ^ D.C. Fontana On TAS Canon (and Sybok), July 22, 2007
  5. ^ from Enterprise Incidents (US) #6
  6. ^ from Star Trek Action Group #9 (September 1973)
  7. ^ from Hailing Frequency #3
  8. ^ from Enterprise Log (Sept/Oct 1973)
  9. ^ from Sub-Space #1
  10. ^ by Germaine Best in Tetrumbriant #1/2 (April 1974)
  11. ^ from Star Trek Today #6
  12. ^ from Is Roddenberry Selling Out?
  13. ^ from Star Trek Action Group #17 (April 1976):
  14. ^ from Starship Exeter Organisation Newsletter v.2 n.5 (February 1979)
  15. ^ comments by Ena Glogowska (who also may be quoting George Takei's remarks at Sol III, printed in G.H.T. Journal #3, a British newsletter
  16. ^ from The Clipper Trade Ship #48 (July 1985)
Retrieved from "https://fanlore.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek:_The_Animated_Series&oldid=2679604"