Spoilers Explaining crew behaviour in "Temporal Edict"

[Bad Thoughts]

Are you going to start that thread or should I?

Why a thread on the obvious? Music follows me wherever I go.

 

[Michael]

Great, now I want them to do a self-aware musical episode. A virus has spread on the Cerritos that let's everyone break out in song when they want to talk. Noël Wells has a beautiful singing voice.

 

[Crewman6]

I have a theory to explain the crew's strange behaviour in "Temporal Edict."

We know the Gelrakians, despite spear-wielding, are technologically advanced (they have warp-capable space ships).

Cerritos was expected to debark the Gelrakian "honour crystal" and ceremonially return it to Gelrak V. Instead, the Bolian officer accidentally loads the incorrect package from storage, and the honour crystal is left on the ship.

It's my feeling that, as Cerritos approached Gelrak V, proximity to the crystal-heavy planet induced some type of subspace harmonic resonance in the Gelrakian honour crystal which caused it to generate a neurogenic or psionic field whose effect is cumulative over time, and causes those exposed to it to fall victim to their foremost anxieties.

In the case of Freeman, it was questioning her aptitude to command efficiently following the cancellation of her role in the peace conference on Cardassia Prime. "We have to do something to prove to Starfleet that our crew isn't just a bunch of slackers." For Shaxs it was about his ability to effectively secure the ship. For the lower-deckers, and the crew in general, it mostly became about their work demands (except Boimler, but I'll get to that).

I think, whether technologically engineered or simply a natural quality that was discovered and harnessed by the Gelrakians, that this aspect of the "revered" honour crystal is used deliberately by the Gelrakians to get the upper-hand against technologically-advanced adversaries, who show up for round two of first contact with their obviously mineral-rich planet, and fail to honour their prior agreements.

It would also explain why the Gelrakians reacted so strongly to the wood, and scrambled their fleet and invaded so quickly, only to (again, somewhat ceremonially) "crystal graffiti" the ship: This operation was always the Gelrakians' Plan B, because this is not their first rodeo. This might be an historic and ongoing cultural practice of theirs, maybe in response to past invasion or bad experiences of space empire colonialism.

Presumably some ceremonial process, storage system, or special location on the surface of Gelrak V (the equally-revered crystal murder-altar, perhaps?) would have rendered the effects of the honour crystal inert or harmless, once returned as intended.

T'ana may have failed to register the effects of the neurogenic or psionic field, as we know at least some sickbay systems (the five-hour bio-bed) were awaiting some repairs. Or, T'ana might simply have failed to detect it, or had done so off-screen and we never found out because no senior officer cared to explain what happened to the lower-deckers.

But why was Boimler seemingly the only crew member left on Cerritos not affected by this?

Well. The four lower-deckers were actually repairing an otherwise-unexplained phase variance in the brig forcefield at the beginning of the episode. Mariner uses a phaser setting on the forcefield which is higher than they are probably supposed to use for this type of testing. Then after completing these special calibrations, with Boimler as the guinea pig, he actually gently touches the forcefield with an unfamiliar tool to "test the field integrity," and energy from the reaction of the tool with the forcefield knocks him all the way to the back of the cell. This is an unusually strong effect from touching a Starfleet forcefield.

This transfer of extra energy from the forcefield to Boimler, with the phase variance recalibrarions, must have polarized his neurons against the effects of the neurogenic field, thus making him the only one on the ship immune to its effects. Add to that, the extra scheduling structure wasn't giving him as much anxiety as everyone else anyway, due to his proclivities.

All of the clues were there, we just had to unpack a 23-minute cartoon into a 44-minute Star Trek plot, and account for the weird framing of the show.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[BillJ]

Nor it is a universally held truth about this show thus far.

Are there any universally held truths about any version of Star Trek?

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.

There is simply nothing in the episode that remotely suggests the crystals are responsible for anything going on.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Are you going to start that thread or should I?

Be my guest.

Great, now I want them to do a self-aware musical episode. A virus has spread on the Cerritos that let's everyone break out in song when they want to talk. Noël Wells has a beautiful singing voice.

They should do a non-aware Trek musical as a separate production and say it's canon, so we can watch posters try to come up with in-universe explanations for the singing and dancing.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Well, as for as for every little event and line of dialogue in Lower Decks being a literal canonical truth in Star Trek goes, Gene Roddenberry himself stated at least once that he considered aspects of the original series itself to be non-literal in canonical terms. It was his intent that the Klingons that we saw in Star Trek The Motion Picture were the versions that we saw all along. Now, of course later storytellers disregarded that notion, but that was Gene's original intent and he was the one with the "vision" wasn't he?

 

[Greylock Crescent]

I disagree with this entirely. Take note that I write humorous science fiction novels that I take very seriously as my profession.

So, because your novels are humorous, we cannot criticize them?

Or can we?

Because the post i quoted both dismissed criticism because the show was comedy and then tried to exalt the show based on critical criteria.

As i said, you can’t do both. Instead you either write it off as purely as fluffy comedy or accept critical criticism.

In which case, neither the story nor the humor in this episode make any internal sense whatsoever.

 

[SolarisOne]

They should do a non-aware Trek musical as a separate production and say it's canon, so we can watch posters try to come up with in-universe explanations for the singing and dancing.

I hate musicals, but seeing heads explode would be worth it.

 

[The Old Mixer]

They should go for broke--Trek soap opera, Trek reality show, Trek hockey team...all declared canon by CBS!

 

[chrinFinity]

You know what, there is a lot of abuse in this thread. This is a Star Trek forum. I would really prefer to discuss neurogenic fields and forcefield phase variance, and the fact that there may have been a Trek meta-plot happening in the background of this episode that was never revealed diectly to the audience because we share narrative perspective with the lower deckers, and whether that might be a running thing for the show or not.

I do not wish to either witness or participate in yet another argument over whether comedy counts as Star Trek, or whether Lower Decks is or is not good. And I'm especially sick of threads degenerating into criticisms of Freeman and Mariner. So can you angry negative complainers please go do that somewhere else, and just let this thread be a friendly speculative discussion?

 

[Charles Phipps]

So, because your novels are humorous, we cannot criticize them?

Or can we?

Because the post i quoted both dismissed criticism because the show was comedy and then tried to exalt the show based on critical criteria.

As i said, you can’t do both. Instead you either write it off as purely as fluffy comedy or accept critical criticism.

In which case, neither the story nor the humor in this episode make any internal sense whatsoever.

I think my argument is that comedy triumphs literalism but that doesn't in any way mean that comedy cannot be analyzed and discussed at length.

I'm on the side of heavy analysis but also understanding when a joke is a joke.

 

[fireproof78]

You know what, there is a lot of abuse in this thread.

If you're seeing that hit the report.

 

[chrinFinity]

I'm on the side of heavy analysis but also understanding when a joke is a joke.

If our analysis helps the joke fit into the universe, then we can have our cake and eat it too.

 

[chrinFinity]

If you're seeing that hit the report.

In fact I did.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm on the side of heavy analysis but also understanding when a joke is a joke.

As with many things in life it is a matter of balance.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

If our analysis helps the joke fit into the universe, then we can have our cake and eat it too.

However, you started in your OP by insisting that it was necessary to find some sort of explanation that eliminated the essential aspects of that comedy. You added elements that were not present in the episode, and that required large assumptions be made. You effectively removed the comedy. Instead, we could look at how the comedy relates to the types of narratives that have been part of Star Trek, asking how they are being turned on their heads while creating new appreciation for the original.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I do think Mariner was overthetop for the character she's established when she resisted arrest and I think Freeman was problematic in her handling of things as a captain. Still, I love both characters. I just think, oddly, Ransom should be the default level of competence and ridiculousness.

His going full Captain Kirk is both ridiculous and heartwarming. The Senior Staff should be quirky but VERY good at their jobs.

Just like the Ensigns need to grow into their roles.

 

[chrinFinity]

However, you started in your OP by insisting that it was necessary to find some sort of explanation that eliminated the essential aspects of that comedy.

Oh I don't think it eliminates the comedy at all. Any more than having the explanation about the showbiz demon in the Buffy musical would ruin the music.

You added elements that were not present in the episode, and that required large assumptions be made. You effectively removed the comedy. Instead, we could look at how the comedy relates to the types of narratives that have been part of Star Trek, asking how they are being turned on their heads while creating new appreciation for the original.

But the clues were all there!!! The shock from the force field. All the ceremonial crystals, and crystal-based culture. Boimler being the only character acting rationally, and the extreme degree to which the others acted out.

I think it's hilarious that there might be other deep-cut Star Trek stuff going on in the background, that you really have to think about to make sense of, and that the primary framing narrative only hints at! That would be amazing!

 

[Michael]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Don't do that. You are mistaken if you think disguising your flaming another poster as a cute video makes it somehow okay.

You know what, there is a lot of abuse in this thread. This is a Star Trek forum. I would really prefer to discuss neurogenic fields and forcefield phase variance, and the fact that there may have been a Trek meta-plot happening in the background of this episode that was never revealed diectly to the audience because we share narrative perspective with the lower deckers, and whether that might be a running thing for the show or not.

Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that's not always how message boards work, I'm afraid. As the thread starter you don't exactly get to dictate what people are going to be talking about. As an analogy, it's more like entering a room full of people and posing an initial question or idea that then gets those people engaged in a conversation. That conversation can then go into a multitude of directions. As mods it's our job to keep it civil and to make sure that people stay within the board rules. But it's not our job to stop people from taking a conversation where it leads them.

To be frank, personally I don't think anything of what you theorized in your original post is in any way actually intended by the writers to be part of the episode. So I kind of understand how people have trouble taking it very seriously and are rather spinning this into their own directions.

 

[The Old Mixer]

If you're gonna start a thread about finding a rational explanation for the crew's wacky behavior, I think you can expect some responses along the lines of, "But it doesn't need a rational explanation, it's a comedy."

And any rational explanation you come up with for the crew's wacky behavior in this week's episode isn't going to hold up next week, and the week after that, and the week after that, when the crew continues to act wacky.