h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: 'Star Trek' - The Animated Television Series - A5431042
Author: GodBen-The god of doors, ducks, eunuchs, and car dealerships ( O-> ) - U518809

The second entry in my Star Trek series. It's a little thin in places, especially when it comes to the cast, but that's because I didn't want to repeat too much of what is in the first entry (A5398428, for those that don't know).

Wow, you've been busy. Respec'!

On a serious note (and this goes for your TOS entry, too): How about including a link to an episode guide? Surely they're out there? Startrek.com (I won't insult your Trekness by posting the URL ) doesn't have one for the animated series, but all the others are there. Never having seen TAS, I must admit to some curiosity about it...

If you're mentioning teh low bdget, you could mmention the fact that footage was often 'recycled' to save money, leading to at least one dubious shot of Scotty from behind where he has a moustache. (yes, I read SFX).

>>How about including a link to an episode guide? Surely they're out there?<<

I’ve found one, maybe two; I can’t tell as the second one’s in German. startrek.com doesn’t even mention the show as far as I can see.

I had intended to have episode guide for all the series, but when I realised that TNG had 176 episodes, it seemed like it might be too long.


>> If you're mentioning teh low bdget, you could mmention the fact that footage was often 'recycled' to save money, leading to at least one dubious shot of Scotty from behind where he has a moustache.<<

I’ve added that, and I’ve mentioned a scene where Spock appears on the bridge after being kidnapped by aliens.


And I final found out that Arex’s rank is Lieutenant (that took some searching to find).

There is a legacy of sorts, in that both Arex and M'Ress appear in the later books of 'New Frontier' series - A2451700. Though, of course, they aren't canon either.


Geggs

I've added that.

Blimey, well done Ben for understanding that appallingly typed post of mine.

GodBen, I wasn't suggesting you'd make an episode guide, just that you add a link to an existing one.

Good going. You have treated this with just the right amount of levity. Just one typo I spotted - but I am a lousy proofreader!!
to the detriment of fans - to the detriment of the series, in the view of Star Trek fans.
Well done!!
SBE

I'm sorry, did I miss the part where you mentioned where the animation was done, as in which country?
Was the series ever dubbed for broadcast in other countries?
There were a series of tie-in recordings, on vinyl and cassette as well as some ViewMaster discs.

As far as I can tell, the animation was all done in America, and was done by the same people who did the Ghostbusters cartoon!!

The problem with finding out about whether it was dubbed is that there's so little information about it out there. Even Memory Alpha, which is a wikipedia style site dedicated to Star Trek, has very little info on it.

I've added a link section, including one with an episode guide.

It's amazing that we've been going so long without these Star Trek entries. That's what I call plugging a gap!

Got a few comments to help you along here:

General point - House Style is that we use words for numbers one up to and including ten, then numerals from 11 upwards, unless you're writing about generic numbers, like 'hundreds and thousands'. You have a few uses of '2' and '5' that need fixing.

The opening quote is brilliant, but just to clarify that it's not an *actual* intro used on the series, would you consider changing the credit to 'How each episode sadly didn't begin', or something equally cheeky?

'trekkies' - experience informs me that 'Trekkers' is by far the safest option, but for its first use I'd suggest simply 'Star Trek fans' with a footnote that explains that while they're widely known as 'Trekkies', the fans themselves prefer the term 'Trekkers'.

'The whole cast was back, minus Chekov, but plus 2 new characters.' You write pretty much this a few paragraphs down so this can be cut here.

Under 'The Cast' you write: 'with the obvious exclusion of Chekov' but I'm not sure why it's obvious. Better to say 'the noticeable exclusion of Chekov' and then mention that instead there were two new alien characters, created to take advantage of the animation format.

'Canon Issues'. A real pet hate of mine this, so apologies if it comes out as snarling 'The Canon' means the accepted collected works. For instance the Canon regarding Sherlock Holmes includes all of the short stories and novels written by Doyle, but not subsequent spin-offs written by others. Here, you're discussing the animated series' 'canonicity' and asking whether it's 'canonical'. Therefore:

'regard to canon. In Star Wars, for instance, all six films along with all the Star Wars novels are considered canon,'

is wrong:

'regard to canonicity. In Star Wars, for instance, all six films along with all the Star Wars novels are considered canonical,'

is right. Please check every use of the word 'canon', because they're probably wrong on most counts.

I should quickly state - don't feel too bad. I've very rarely read of a single piece of writing on this topic from Doctor Who fans who know how to use the word either.

A suggestion for external links though. It works better for us now if external links don't appear as lists at the bottom of the page. This is because those links won't work on our mobile version of the site, which is why we recommend that people instead include external links as part of a Reference section, which you put in between the final and . You also need to put a 'TITLE' tag in there to give the link an easy reference label. I've knocked together your references for you:










Hope this all helps - smashing entry!

Jims

OK, I *think* I sorted all that out, but that bit about canon had me going round in circles.

Re: Canon, can I suggest that instead of

"Canon is 'facts' which are stated in the shows."

"The canon is 'facts' which are stated in the shows."

Might read better?

A 'Canon' is a group of things that's recognised as 'official' or 'proper', so the Star Trek Canon would probably be the TV episodes and the movies, as there's strong and intentional continuity in the stories and in the behind-the-scenes production teams, as opposed to fan fiction, comic strips and spoofs. Some people might not count the animated series as part of the canon - in other words, they don't consider it to be *canonical*, they question its *canonicity*, ie, its right to be considered part of the Canon.

So, the nature of being part of the canon is 'canonicity'.

If something does belong to the Canon, it's 'canonical'.

You never describe something as being 'canon', because that is ungrammatical.

So you can say ' Some people consider the animated series to be canonical', or you can say 'The canonicity of the animated series has occasionally been questioned', but you can't say 'The animated series is canon'.

Hell, now I'm confused . So is my suggested change grammatically correct, or not?

Well I've either fixed all those problems, or made them worse. Either way, I need a drink.

Grammatically right, factually wrong.

The Canon isn't about facts but where they come from. If a fact was revealed in a televised episode, most people would consider the fact canonical. If the fact came from a spin-off book, some might argue the fact was non-canonical, because they consider the books outside of the official canon.

Ah, I get it. Canon is like a box, and in that box is the live-action series and movies, and outside it is TAS, the novels, and other such things. You don't describe TOS, or TNG, or any of the things that are in the box as being 'box', you describe them as being 'in the box', or 'boxical', or somesuch. TAS is 'outside the box', or 'non-boxical'.

I'm not making much sense, am I?

You've grasped the concept in two weeks much quicker than Doctor Who fandom has in 15 years!