I thought the Admiral was the captain of the Quito. Why else would he be concerned about shipping her back?
Spoilers Lower Decks General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter mdtauk
- Start date
I thought the Admiral was the captain of the Quito. Why else would he be concerned about shipping her back?
Maybe. He's a four-star though, so the Quito would have to be just his flagship and I would assume he primarily works elsewhere (a large capital planet, a la Earth or stupid Vulcan, or major facility a la Earth Spacedock or Jupiter Station). We haven't seen alot of four-star admirals in Star Trek, but he would outrank Vice Admiral Leyton, the Chief of Starfleet Operations (in 2372), which means this guy must have a very high-up job in Starfleet.
I think he just wants Ensign Mariner under his wife's thumb where she can do little harm to his reputation than if she was out on her own. And Captain Freeman doesn't want Ensign Mariner under her undermining her or even perhaps stopping her from promotion if that's a goal of hers. So it's a battle of two spouses trying to keep their rebel daughter from harming their respective careers.
Could be? I'm sure we'll get to watch it play out.
Rewatched and it's unclear. Freeman says "You said you would ship her back to the Quito". Which sounds like Admiral Dad has some control of crew assignments, but is not on the Quito.
Last edited:
For the talk about the Negative Nonnies being mean- it looks like some negativity from top critics at major outlets, with most giving Lower Decks a bad or mixed review (based on first 4 episodes.) Some positive reviews too, such as from IO9 and Den of Geek, and a very mildly positive review from NPR.
"...doesn't register very strongly as either a geekfest or a transgressive satire. Which is another way of saying it's not all that funny. Wherever it's going, it's not doing it very boldly." - New York Times
"'Lower Decks is the latest disappointment in the Star Trek stewardship of CBS All Access and producer Alex Kurtzman." - Rolling Stone
"If the joke of Lower Decks is that its characters, on a random ship doing clean-up work somewhere in the galaxy, fall short of demanding a show about their adventures, it's not hard to agree." - Variety
"...leaves no lasting impression." - Guardian
"For all its glossy new aesthetics and adult content, Star Trek currently feels intellectually and emotionally juvenile in ways that frustrate." - New York Magazine / Vulture
"Lower Decks is a largely joke-free missed opportunity to capitalize on a corner of the Federation workforce that has long enticed writers, but continues to await the sort of franchise treatment it deserves." - Hollywood Reporter
"Stale." - The Verge
"Lower Decks lacks punch, politics, or purpose." - Polygon
"There's been a glut of new Trek content recently, and all of it has struggled to varying degrees to justify its existence as more than just a brand extension. Lower Decks is no exception." - AV Club
"...doesn't register very strongly as either a geekfest or a transgressive satire. Which is another way of saying it's not all that funny. Wherever it's going, it's not doing it very boldly." - New York Times
"'Lower Decks is the latest disappointment in the Star Trek stewardship of CBS All Access and producer Alex Kurtzman." - Rolling Stone
"If the joke of Lower Decks is that its characters, on a random ship doing clean-up work somewhere in the galaxy, fall short of demanding a show about their adventures, it's not hard to agree." - Variety
"...leaves no lasting impression." - Guardian
"For all its glossy new aesthetics and adult content, Star Trek currently feels intellectually and emotionally juvenile in ways that frustrate." - New York Magazine / Vulture
"Lower Decks is a largely joke-free missed opportunity to capitalize on a corner of the Federation workforce that has long enticed writers, but continues to await the sort of franchise treatment it deserves." - Hollywood Reporter
"Stale." - The Verge
"Lower Decks lacks punch, politics, or purpose." - Polygon
"There's been a glut of new Trek content recently, and all of it has struggled to varying degrees to justify its existence as more than just a brand extension. Lower Decks is no exception." - AV Club
I'm having "Superman" flashbacks:
Or.... Season 5 of TNG where the streaks were added in honor of Trek's 25th.
Fixed that for you. Now it reads more accurate.
I can handle just the title card ("Superman" overdid it, IMO).
Critics? Never paid attention to them cuz I'm to broke to pay.
Load of people who wouldn't know a good low brow joke if it hit them in the face like there dominatrix does to them..
Schroedinger’s cat walks into a bar. And it doesn’t.
Load of people who wouldn't know a good low brow joke if it hit them in the face like there dominatrix does to them..
Schroedinger’s cat walks into a bar. And it doesn’t.
Last edited:
OT:
Higgs Boson Particle walks into a cathedral.
The priest walks over to the particle. He asks the particle, "What are you doing here?"
The particle replies, "You need me. Without me, there is no mass."
Threshold was awesome. Dick.
Yeeeeeah. I'm finding this a little bit hard to believe. I've been posting on bulletin boards for 25 years. And I've never seen anyone say that. And if what you think about "Threshold" is disingenuous, then so is your hyperbolic statement about Lower Decks. Try again.
Threshold is tolerable at best. "Awesome" is something I never thought I would read about it.
Plus, when people say Star Trek is about an evolved humanity I don't think that's what they meant.
Plus, when people say Star Trek is about an evolved humanity I don't think that's what they meant.
Well now you have. Lower Decks is an absolute travesty and adds nothing; i repeat NOTHING to the value of Star Trek.
It's a TV show. If it entertains me it has value.
And what value is that since it was meant as entertainment? Seems to be entertaining a fair number of people here.
Did they see 4 episodes, or only the first?
Roddenberry's vision: We're all amphibians again XD
Similar threads
- Poll
