This presupposes that the characters are actually acting funny.
This is not a given. Nor it is a universally held truth about this show thus far.
Spoilers Explaining crew behaviour in "Temporal Edict"
- Thread starter chrinFinity
- Start date
This is not a given. Nor it is a universally held truth about this show thus far.
I view Lower Decks through a not quite literal lens because, well, it's a cartoon and comedy, so while I have no doubt events similar to this canonically happened in the Trekverse--I view it "GASP" as perhaps maybe just a comedic exaggeration. Yes, I'm a Trekkie arguing not to take something completely seriously.
But one way to interpret Captain Freeman's "New Essentialist"-esque attitudes about the Federation that makes sense might be the fact that she came up as a Captain during the Dominion War. Her very harsh military discipline, efficiency, and hardassery could be a reflection of knowing when that was the only thing standing between the Federation and annihilation.
It's just that attitude has no place in Starfleet now and it's driving her batty.
Which....oh dear, just makes me realize I'm describing her as Krall/Balthazar Edison now. I kind of shot my argument in the foot there.
But one way to interpret Captain Freeman's "New Essentialist"-esque attitudes about the Federation that makes sense might be the fact that she came up as a Captain during the Dominion War. Her very harsh military discipline, efficiency, and hardassery could be a reflection of knowing when that was the only thing standing between the Federation and annihilation.
It's just that attitude has no place in Starfleet now and it's driving her batty.
Which....oh dear, just makes me realize I'm describing her as Krall/Balthazar Edison now. I kind of shot my argument in the foot there.
Last edited:
You can't do both.
"And yet I did."
-John Delancie voice.
But yes, I am happy to do the double think of treating the show as having happened in the Trekverse while imagining whatever "really" happened isn't necessarily Rick and Morty-esque lunacy. I view this as the "Boimler explaining this around the bar" version of events.
I agree with Tia.
To exist in the same world it must follow the same rules, and there is already lot of overlap in story devices.
And perhaps the energy creature is involved somehow, although that would break the episodic format to have serialization that early.
The crystal causing irrational behaviour on the ship, and Boimler being immune, is a good explanation for what happened, and a tried and tested Trek Trope as well.
And the away team wasn't affected, because they were on the planet.
To exist in the same world it must follow the same rules, and there is already lot of overlap in story devices.
And perhaps the energy creature is involved somehow, although that would break the episodic format to have serialization that early.
The crystal causing irrational behaviour on the ship, and Boimler being immune, is a good explanation for what happened, and a tried and tested Trek Trope as well.
And the away team wasn't affected, because they were on the planet.
You're still conducting mental gymnastics. Either the show is frivolous silliness (to whatever extent that is successful - and therefore any inconsistencies can be papered over for "comedic" reasons), or it has a measure of meaning in the Trek universe, in which case such inconsistencies are subject to discussion."And yet I did."
-John Delancie voice.
But yes, I am happy to do the double think of treating the show as having happened in the Trekverse while imagining whatever "really" happened isn't necessarily Rick and Morty-esque lunacy. I view this as the "Boimler explaining this around the bar" version of events.
I'm perfectly fine with the former. But as purely a comedy, the series has, thus far, for me, failed.
Lower Decks is an absurdist interpretation about what happens in the Star Trek universe. Only the really important stuff happened. The USS Cerritos had a mishapp with a diplomatic meeting, leading to a major disagreement. Shakeups in the management approach hampered how the crew dealt with the disagreement.
Precisely.
One cannot both proclaim that this is not to be taken seriously, and then subsequently launch into any serious explanation for whatever happens on-screen.
And there's the rub. This series only works when people enjoy what they see on-screen. There's no "there there" to it. To try an explain any criticism of the show, with in-universe explanations runs contrary to what the show is presenting. It stands or falls on its own merits. And no matter of explanation will justify any of its shortcomings.
I think the latest episode fails because it makes xenophobia a joke, and I find xenophobia to be distinctly un-funny. For anyone who laughed at it, that's fine by me because the series is absurdist ... but because the series is absurdist, there's no rational way to refute my interpretation of it.
And yet I will continue to do so. I like analyzing the characters even if think that the craziness is probably not literal.
Well, then. Carry on.
Sure I can. I enjoy serious exploration of silly matters.
That's only because you are dueling left-handed. Right-handed and such silly matters would be vanquished forthwith.
Actually, you can take a deep analysis of something that is presented in an absurdist light, just not on the basis of any sort of verisimilitude. Picasso's portrait of Dora Maar is still meant to describe something about the photographer, but we should not assume she has a flat face. Darrell Hammond's impression of Sean Connery is not a reflection of Sean Connery himself, but a commentary on the austere atmosphere of Jeopardy, Alex Trebek in particular. We can interpret what happens in Lower Decks, but not in the sense that we are seeing the actions of the characters in detail.
LOL @ the notion of interpreting Lower Decks at the level of Picasso.
Seriously. Either we are meant to take it, well, seriously (and accept all of the criticisms of it) or it's just fluff and such criticisms are invalid - aside from the fact that the fluff just doesn't work.
Seriously. Either we are meant to take it, well, seriously (and accept all of the criticisms of it) or it's just fluff and such criticisms are invalid - aside from the fact that the fluff just doesn't work.
Or both.
I wouldn't interpret your retort as a work of art either.LOL @ the notion of interpreting Lower Decks at the level of Picasso.
LOL
But I'm not the one claiming such a moral high ground.
It's incumbent upon you to justify such a preposterous position.
Lower Decks is, as yet, no Picasso.
I'm not comparing Lower Decks with Picasso. I'm making an argument about how to analyze and interpret works that are not directly representational of "reality." That should be obvious to you.
Last edited:
LOL @ the notion of interpreting Lower Decks at the level of Picasso.
Seriously. Either we are meant to take it, well, seriously (and accept all of the criticisms of it) or it's just fluff and such criticisms are invalid - aside from the fact that the fluff just doesn't work.
I disagree with this entirely. Take note that I write humorous science fiction novels that I take very seriously as my profession.
Are you going to start that thread or should I?
Similar threads
