That remains to be seen. As a piece of Star Trek, I maintain that it bears analysis and that any elements that appear inconsistent with continuity should be explained to the best of our ability.
Spoilers Explaining crew behaviour in "Temporal Edict"
- Thread starter chrinFinity
- Start date
The crews' behavior is a riff on things like Scotty's inflation of work estimates, the often obsessive need to fill up free time with work on TNG, and a little overthetop look at the breakdown of productivity that can occur when employers overregulate their employees' use of time.
I agree 100%. But it is literally unbelievable that Starfleet officers would literally behave like that, without some outside alien influence. All available evidence leads to a reasonable hypothesis about what that influence might have been, and its exaggerating effect on their inherent traits and insecurities remains just as funny as the crew's behaviour in The Naked Now was intended to be.
The series literally takes places in a time yet to occur with technology that can't literally exist covering distances that are literally impossible for living beings.
"Show's not real" is an invalid argument and I think that you should know that.
No, what I am saying is that the show literally exists because people were willing to stretch reality.
Well, If you have to explain a joke, its kinda of a dud to begin with 
But Trekkies are all about coming up with explainations of the How, What, When, and sometimes Y of Trekness, which makes it fun!
But Trekkies are all about coming up with explainations of the How, What, When, and sometimes Y of Trekness, which makes it fun!
And when comedy lacks jokes, all that’s left is criticism.
I feel like this is still the more accurate answer. Occam's Razor at this point. It's a classic case of overcompensation.
I admit I'd add:
1. Captain Freeman doesn't know how much time any of the tasks require, which is necessary for bumper time to work in the first place so all of her assignments are arbitrarily timed.
2. Captain Freeman is old enough to have her Starfleet time primarily during the Dominion War and maybe even Cardassian War before it. So she prefers a militaristic ship.
I would agree with both of those, and their lackadaisical attitude could stick in her craw, and her daughter just makes it worse.
What is this supposed to meanHoly shit....some of you guys....
He's out.
Not sure I find the crew's behavior wacky. Just overly stressed because the captain got a wild hair over being passed over for a ceremony. It was a Frank Burns/MASH moment.
I don't see anything inconsistent with continuity. There are thousands of starships out there in the Trek universe, all running just a bit differently. Much like the Enterprise, DS9 and Voyager all ran a bit differently, even though they are all Starfleet.
Everyone seems to want to quibble semantically with whatever adjective I attempt to employ to describe comedic behavior that isn't redundant with having "comedy" in the same sentence. Bottom line is that we're talking about people coming up with "serious" explanations for comedic behavior in a comedy.
And this is fandom on a good day.Welcome to being a Star Trek fan.
Okay but the ship isn't "Comedy-class," it's "California-class." You can't just say they act goofy because it's a comedy here, there needs to be an in-universe explanation to justify the conceit in order for things to fit into continuity.
It's like how they had the "gas leak year" on Community.
It's like how they had the "gas leak year" on Community.
The justification is that it is a comedy. That's the framing device and a part of suspension of disbelief.
Similar threads
