Spoilers Star Trek: Lower Decks 2x01 - "Strange Energies"

[Charles Phipps]

Part of the fun is Mariner is a rebellious anti-authority rebel in STARFLEET. The mildest authority in the universe. Which is the only reason she hasn't been cashiered and even their near-limitless patience and tolerance is pushed to the, well, limit.

It's an actual character flaw too and not just something to make her look cool, which it doesn't because as Ransom pointed out to her early on, "No one finds this edgy or cool. Just tiresome."

Even Mariner admitted it to herself while beating herself up.

 

[Phoenix219]

Trek fans assuming aliens had human-sounding names goes back many years. Before FC confirmed once and for all that Zefram Cochrane was indeed a human from Earth there was lots of noncanon information that he was a native of the Alpha Centauri system even though his name sounded remarkably Terran, both in first name and surname. Had Cochrane turned out to be an alien from more than 4 light-years away he would have had a pretty human-sounding name.

I always figured he was born in the Alpha Centauri system, but that he was still human and on our first interstellar colony world, as Alpha Centauri is closest. It would have been like getting to the old west, with no warp drive, but only 4.3 light years away, a slow journey that took years to build, but ultimately became our first successful extrasolar colony and thriving civilization in its own right.

 

[Burning Hearts of Qo'nos]

Part of the fun is Mariner is a rebellious anti-authority rebel in STARFLEET. The mildest authority in the universe. Which is the only reason she hasn't been cashiered and even their near-limitless patience and tolerance is pushed to the, well, limit.

I enjoy this description lol. Renegade of the hall monitors.

 

[cooleddie74]

I always figured he was born in the Alpha Centauri system, but that he was still human and on our first interstellar colony world, as Alpha Centauri is closest. It would have been like getting to the old west, with no warp drive, but only 4.3 light years away, a slow journey that took years to build, but ultimately became our first successful extrasolar colony and thriving civilization in its own right.

Makes more sense than him being an almost indistinguishable alien from Alpha Centauri who had a human name, and that's knowing full well this franchise has more human-looking, oxygen-breathing aliens who speak English than should be allowed under law.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Makes more sense than him being an almost indistinguishable alien from Alpha Centauri who had a human name, and that's knowing full well this franchise has more human-looking, oxygen-breathing aliens who speak English than should be allowed under law.

I dunno, Zepham Cochrane is more alien than most alien names.

 

[Kevman7987]

Star Trek lore has really changed since the original Star Trek Chronology was published.

 

[Tuskin38]

I always figured he was born in the Alpha Centauri system, but that he was still human and on our first interstellar colony world, as Alpha Centauri is closest. It would have been like getting to the old west, with no warp drive, but only 4.3 light years away, a slow journey that took years to build, but ultimately became our first successful extrasolar colony and thriving civilization in its own right.

That would be impossible in a reasonable amount of time without warp drive, or something to cancel out time dilation when going high speeds.

 

[cooleddie74]

Even in the dialogue of the original TOS episode McCoy describes Cochrane as fully and normally human so even back in 1967 it seemed apparent that Zefram Cochrane was meant to be human even if he wasn't from Earth. Cochrane recognizes the English language and understands the story of the Judas Goat. Hardly a story that a random alien from another solar system would know of and apply correctly to a given situation.

 

[Charles Phipps]

That would be impossible in a reasonable amount of time without warp drive, or something to cancel out time dilation when going high speeds.

I'm inclined to agree. Even in the 1960s that's more of a time thing, though. When would they even reach outer space? 1999?

 

[Boris Skrbic]

You said that there were no chaotic good characters in Star Trek, period. Not that there were no comic chaotic good characters in Star Trek or what have you.

That was shown to not be the case.

I'll take you at your word that you intended an asterisk by that statement to be no chaotic good comedic characters or whatever.

Do you feel that the phrase ‘chaotic good’ belongs to such widespread English usage that there is no way it could be interpreted as “essentially on the side of angels, but also unconventional, eccentric, anarchic”, as opposed to all that plus “morally ambiguous, troubling”? I mean you actually went as far as questioning my intentions in a discussion about a TV show (before taking me at my word, whew). How important is this to you?

There's nothing ridiculous about comparing Mariner to Sisko as chaotic good characters, or at least not just because Sisko was in a situation in "In The Pale Moonlight" that Mariner wouldn't face.

What’s ridiculous is that we’d have to break Mariner’s reality in order to imagine her in such a situation. The character doesn’t have shape in other incarnations of the franchise, so we don’t know how she’d behave. Everything on the show is exaggerated a bit, including the behavior of established characters.

I think it's been made very clear that Mariner has issues, among them PTSD from her previous missions, a love-hate relationship with her mother, a hate-hate relationship with Starfleet's bureaucracy, a fear of failure and of success. (We still haven't seen IIRC a scene with her and Dadmiral, but I'd say there's some issues there too.)

Again, we don’t know exactly what’s “real” (with respect to live action) and what’s been exaggerated for comedic purposes. I’d still like to see deck-by-deck blueprints of this 535-meter-long ship that demonstrate why these particular ensigns don’t even deserve bunks in actual quarters like the Defiant crew. How much of what we see would have to disappear before an LDS character or situation could be seriously compared with a possible live-action analogue?

I think it's clear that LD isn't the sort of show you wish it were, and it's unlikely to change into that kind of show.

No, but even as we watch the show, it’s important to remain critical and always imagine what could be rather than settle for what is. I’m just curious if people would like to see more than this fairly obvious implementation of Star Trek as a prime-time animated comedy.

 

[DaveyNY]

Personally, I'm quite satisfied with what Lower Decks has been/is doing.

But then again, even if I wished for it to be different, it wouldn't make it so.

There's nothing wrong with being content with what we get, especially since we're not the ones in control of the TV Show.

 

[Amaris]

Do you feel that the phrase ‘chaotic good’ belongs to such widespread English usage that there is no way it could be interpreted as “essentially on the side of angels, but also unconventional, eccentric, anarchic” as opposed to “morally ambiguous, troubling”? I mean you actually went as far as questioning my intentions in a discussion about a TV show (before taking me at my word, whew). How important is this to you?

Your posts indicate this is dearly important to you to the point where people can't just disagree, you want something held to account about a Star Trek cartoon.

What’s ridiculous is that we’d have to break Mariner’s reality in order to imagine her in such a situation. The character doesn’t have shape in other incarnations of the franchise, so we don’t know how she’d behave. Everything on the show is exaggerated a bit, including the behavior of established characters.

It's a cartoon, played for laughs with minor drama. This isn't Grave of the Fireflies.

Again, we don’t know exactly what’s “real” (with respect to live action) and what’s been exaggerated for comedic purposes. I’d still like to see deck-by-deck blueprints of this 535-meter-long ship that demonstrate why these particular ensigns don’t even deserve bunks in actual quarters like the Defiant crew. How much of what we see would have to disappear before an LDS character or situation could be seriously compared with an apparent live-action analogue?

This is the first episode of the second season. Again, you seem to want a deep exegesis of throwaway fun stories. You're not going to get what you want here.

No, but even as we watch the show, it’s important to remain critical and always imagine what could be rather than settle for what is. I’m just curious if people would like to see more than this most obvious implementation of Star Trek as a prime-time animated comedy.

You have literally never had more Star Trek to choose from than right now, with more to come. This is clearly not the niche for you. Quit saying it tastes nothing like the steak you'd prefer when it's meant to be french fries. Asking people how they can eat this without wanting steak does nothing to make your steak happen, and everything to work against you from the french fry eaters at the table who are just enjoying their tasty snack.

 

[DaveyNY]

Asking people how they can eat this without wanting steak does nothing to make your steak happen, and everything to work against you from the french fry eaters at the table who are just enjoying their tasty snack.

There's plenty of nostalgia salt but I could use a little more silliness ketchup for my fries, please.

 

[Amaris]

There's plenty of nostalgia salt but I could use a little more silliness ketchup for my fries, please.

Sure, and that's a reasonable request. A little more lighthearted silliness would be within the realm of the show's theme. It's the whole notion of "why won't they make their silly, lightheated cartoon more serious so that I can gauge its validation in canon?!" is just... not going to happen, and outside the bounds of reasonable for this show.

It's like when I would watch MLP, and there would be bronies asking why there aren't darker storylines all of the time, and it's like "guys? Really?"

Some darkness in a light show, and some lightness in a darker show is just fine, but play too much with it thematically, and you lose the show direction, and it starts to drift if it's not designed to handle that issue from the outset (Lucifer, for example, which balances dark plots with silliness and does it well, IMO).

 

[fireproof78]

No, but even as we watch the show, it’s important to remain critical and always imagine what could be rather than settle for what is. I’m just curious if people would like to see more than this fairly obvious implementation of Star Trek as a prime-time animated comedy.

This is criticism is no longer coming across as reasonable or in good faith. It is trying to bend the show in to a shape it was not meant to be and then complaining it is not so.

Personally, I'm quite satisfied with what Lower Decks has been/is doing.

But then again, even if I wished for it to be different, it wouldn't make it so.

There's nothing wrong with being content with what we get, especially since we're not the ones in control of the TV Show.

There is a balance to be struck in this process that seems really missed at this point. Ultimately, all the critical analysis done will not change reality of what is. And now it appears the critical analysis is an active barrier to enjoyment.

Contentment involves a measure of acceptance.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Your posts indicate this is dearly important to you to the point where people can't just disagree, you want something held to account about a Star Trek cartoon.

The point is it’s not so important that I’d have to make a decision on someone’s intentions when they’re listing examples for a specialized turn of phrase. On the other hand, it’s perfectly fair to criticize Lower Decks and have an opinion on how it could be different. You’re not saying we should “agree to disagree” and stop having substantial discussions?

It's the whole notion of "why won't they make their silly, lightheated cartoon more serious so that I can gauge its validation in canon?!"

You didn’t notice that @Sarcastic Vulcan Salute was supporting comparisons with live-action characters, while I was arguing that the show is too exaggerated to enable that? (It’s still an interesting question.) Yes, I’d like to see it played straight, but only so it goes against the grain of what is expected from this kind of animated comedy, especially when there is so much natural potential for humor in aspects of the franchise that are conveniently avoided in live action.

This is criticism is no longer coming across as reasonable or in good faith. It is trying to bend the show in to a shape it was not meant to be and then complaining it is not so.

So you imagine that TV shows can have one and only one immutable shape from start to finish, to the point that arguing for an alternate approach isn’t “reasonable or in good faith”? Have you watched Babylon 5? What about discussing the format of a show but seeing it implemented in another show? Or should we expect as little as possible and settle for what we see at any given moment, with a kind of disillusionment that treats phrases like “where no one has gone before” as mere window dressing?

 

[fireproof78]

So you imagine that TV shows can have one and only one immutable shape from start to finish, to the point that arguing for an alternate approach isn’t “reasonable or in good faith”? Have you watched Babylon 5? What about discussing the format of a show but seeing it implemented in another show? Or should we expect as little as possible and settle for what we see at any given moment, with a kind of disillusionment that treats phrases like “where no one has gone before” as mere window dressing?

I think there is a baseline conceit of a show. For instance, I would not expect a comedy to delve fully seriously in to life or death questions with a biting end about the facts of life. A comedy is, by definition, a U shaped story that will end on a high note. Thus far, the alternate approach argument is to treat this show if a larger increase of seriousness that feels very out of step with the baseline conceit of the entire show.

I'm not saying it is immutable but the conversation seems to be holding LD to a rather strange standard that I find unforgiving. No, it's not disillusionment but recognizing that a measure of acceptance of the presentation as given is part of engagement. And, it's not settling to accept reality as presented. If you want LD to be different then how is that beneficial to this show as it has been framed as a comedy?

 

[Amaris]

So you imagine that TV shows can have one and only one immutable shape from start to finish, to the point that arguing for an alternate approach isn’t “reasonable or in good faith”? Have you watched Babylon 5? What about discussing the format of a show but seeing it implemented in another show? Or should we expect as little as possible and settle for what we see at any given moment, with a kind of disillusionment that treats phrases like “where no one has gone before” as mere window dressing?

immutable? No one said immutable but you. Every show has a basic theme. For example, if Seaquest had started basing its episodes around an office in Minnesota, you would understandably agree that the show has lost its theme. If DS9 had switched to all funny episodes all of the time, like a Friday night sitcom, it would have lost its basic theme. If Lower Decks begins to play it straight then it will have lost its basic theme.

The show centers around some low level crew members on a second stringer ship, and what happens is the hilarity and hijinx that ensue from their encounters with a frontier that often wants to kill them in some form or fashion. That's the premise of the show. You can ask for more straightforward episodes, but what you seem to want is a reconstruction of the show's premise to better fit Star Trek you're used to, and that's just not reasonable.

 

[Trekker4747]

Using the Miranda class as an escape ship was great, very cinematic. The 4 lights joke, Gary Mitchell references and ultimately several kicks to the balls was great. Obviously, Riker…. Very nice to have Trek back.

Someone getting repeatedly kicked in the balls qualifies to you as "Trek is back."

Ummm. Okay.

 

[fireproof78]

The captain threatens to spank a visiting dignitary. True Trek!