Do we all love Lower Decks because we don't take it seriously???

[ED-209]

I think this is the case, to most of us it's just a light hearted bit of fun and i don't think I've read nearly as much negativity towards it as DSC and PIC. Is this just because we don't take it seriously?? If PIC had the Pakleds as an actual threat to the Federation and revealed that lower ranks have less replicator privileges I think people would be screaming blue murder.

Thoughts?

 

[matthunter]

PIC kind of DID allude to lower grades getting crap replicators, during the flashback to the Synth attack on Mars.

 

[Search4]

I don't take situaiton comedies seriously. And certianly not cartoons.
"Friends" couldn't have afforded those apartments.
"Gilligans Island" ("those poor people") is not that realistic.
Bart Simpson seems to be a slow developer.
"The Good Place" probably was satirizing religion.

The point of these shows is to lampoon life and have amusing situations that get you to think, hopefully chuckle and keep you entertained.

Star Trek is NOT NOT NOT future history - it is entertainment. Lower Decks is doing a great job at exactly that.

 

[Tim Thomason]

The Pakleds are only a threat because they are being controlled by someone else, a fact alluded to in the first episode of this season, and will probably be a big reveal in the last episode.

I think Picard, TNG, or even DS9 would work well with this kind of storyline, albeit less comicly. TNG invented the Pakleds, after all, and DS9 had long-running stories on those funny one-note aliens, the Ferengi.

 

[fireproof78]

I think this is the case, to most of us it's just a light hearted bit of fun and i don't think I've read nearly as much negativity towards it as DSC and PIC. Is this just because we don't take it seriously?? If PIC had the Pakleds as an actual threat to the Federation and revealed that lower ranks have less replicator privileges I think people would be screaming blue murder.

Thoughts?

Honestly, I think it's just a matter of time, but that might be the cynic in me.

Personally, I do not take Trek too seriously in general. Certainly I am passionate about it, enjoy and find a lot of technical details to be fun to unpack with friends and fellow fans. But, Lower Decks just illustrates perfectly the attitude that I have with Star Trek-appreciate the show for what it is, rather than trying to make it bigger than it is. Star Trek is just fine as an entertainment medium, not a treatise on life.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I DO take it seriously. I look forward to the day when LD does a totally serious episode.

Of course they probably won't, but it's fun to think about.

 

[Super Grover]

I feel it's because Lower Deck doesn't take itself all that seriously as the other current live action Trek series, is why we like it so much; It's probably given them more freedom to play with, explore, and lampoon this entire Trek universe. But it isn't like your Family Guy and Rick and Morty, because even though it's animated, it's still a part of the Star Trek universe, and has to operate according to the rules of the universe

The only sort of live action comedy that I could compare it with, is perhaps Brooklyn Nine-Nine. The precinct is filled with these goofball quirky cops who all have their issues. But when the time comes for them to be "serious," cops they step up.

Or even going further back to shows like Sledge Hammer! or Get Smart. They were comedy shows, with action elements, and if you want to pull something like that off, you can't downplay the danger. That way it really hits home when they don't pull their punches like having the Pakleds destroy the Solvang.

To me, Lower Decks came about because Mike McMahan took all those things we as trek fans love to joke about that are funny to us, and built a show around that.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I love silly Trek: gangster planet, Apollo, Ferengi, and Tribbles. I feel like people have forgotten that the wildly fun and ridiculous has always been part of Trek and taking it too seriously is the death of the franchise.

I think this is the case, to most of us it's just a light hearted bit of fun and i don't think I've read nearly as much negativity towards it as DSC and PIC. Is this just because we don't take it seriously?? If PIC had the Pakleds as an actual threat to the Federation and revealed that lower ranks have less replicator privileges I think people would be screaming blue murder.

Thoughts?

I am genuinely stunned at the pushback that the Ensigns can't program their own meals into replicators versus officers. This is probably the number 1# thing I think that people push back on with believability.

And I'm like, "Of course the ranks can't program their own meals! They need to keep to healthy diet!"

 

[Commander Troi]

I don't take situaiton comedies seriously. And certianly not cartoons.
"Friends" couldn't have afforded those apartments.
"Gilligans Island" ("those poor people") is not that realistic.
Bart Simpson seems to be a slow developer.
"The Good Place" probably was satirizing religion.

I honestly hate most sitcoms. Very very few actually entertain me at all. But "The Good Place" IMO was *brilliant*. It was subversive and I saw it as an "undercover" class on philosophy, ethics, and world religions. It made people think, which isn't something "sitcoms" normally do.

To me, Lower Decks came about because Mike McMahan took all those things we as trek fans love to joke about that are funny to us, and built a show around that.

Exactly. Anyone want to sing "Banned from Argo"? I've often thought the ability to joke about something you love is the sign of a healthy mind.

I love silly Trek: gangster planet, Apollo, Ferengi, and Tribbles. I feel like people have forgotten that the wildly fun and ridiculous has always been part of Trek and taking it too seriously is the death of the franchise.

Absolutely! It boggles me when people complain about Silly getting in their Serious. Life itself is like that!

 

[Amasov]

I don't know if my definition of taking a show "seriously" fits here. I just know that if I'm watching it and invested in what's going on with the plot and the characters, (regardless of whether it's meant to be funny or not) that's taking it seriously, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't know if my definition of taking a show "seriously" fits here. I just know that if I'm watching it and invested in what's going on with the plot and the characters, (regardless of whether it's meant to be funny or not) that's taking it seriously, as far as I'm concerned.

I think that's a good way to define "seriously." To me, investment is more important that seriousness. If I am invested in the characters, drama or comedy, it doesn't matter. Give me characters to care about and I'm in.

 

[Amasov]

I think that's a good way to define "seriously." To me, investment is more important that seriousness. If I am invested in the characters, drama or comedy, it doesn't matter. Give me characters to care about and I'm in.

And I'm probably equating "investment" with taking it seriously.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

So many people were hating on the show before it came out. It was seen as yet another way that Kurtzman was trying to kill the franchise. This segment of the fanbase was only appeased when they found out that the series was set directly after Nemesis, the ship looked like it had been designed by Rick Sternbach and the interiors looked like 90's trek complete with lcars displays.

There is some real cognitive dissonance with some of the people shitting on Discovery and Picard while praising Lower Decks. Lower Decks wouldn't exist if it were not for the success of Disco and Picard. People criticise Kurtzman as being some franchise destroying monster but who the fuck do they think signed off on McMahan's pitch and let him have free reign and total creative control in terms of design and writing?

Personally I love lower decks because I'm invested in the characters and also because I think it's actually a big fuck you to some of the 'fans' out there who want to gatekeep trek.

 

[Amaris]

I think this is the case, to most of us it's just a light hearted bit of fun and i don't think I've read nearly as much negativity towards it as DSC and PIC. Is this just because we don't take it seriously?? If PIC had the Pakleds as an actual threat to the Federation and revealed that lower ranks have less replicator privileges I think people would be screaming blue murder.

Thoughts?

Mmm... sorta.

I consider it canon in the Star Trek universe. I consider it serious enough that I care about the characters and what happens to them. The rest? I see it like I do Firefly: a great show set in an interesting universe where shit happens to a team of plucky underdogs, and a bunch of it is funny as hell.

 

[WarpTenLizard]

No. We love "Lower Decks" because it's the most serious drama in Star Trek since DS9.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

No. We love "Lower Decks" because it's the most serious drama in Star Trek since DS9.

In what way?

 

[dupersuper]

"Gilligans Island" ("those poor people") is not that realistic.

Now there's an understatement...

There is some real cognitive dissonance with some of the people shitting on Discovery and Picard while praising Lower Decks. Lower Decks wouldn't exist if it were not for the success of Disco and Picard.

The fact they were successful enough to spin off a show I like more doesn't invalidate issues I and others have with the shows themselves.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Now there's an understatement...



The fact they were successful enough to spin off a show I like more doesn't invalidate issues I and others have with the shows themselves.

Where did I say that it did? Discovery and Picard aren't perfect, but they're also not the abominations certain hyperbolic segments of the fanbase make them out to be.

 

[dupersuper]

Where did I say that it did? Discovery and Picard aren't perfect, but they're also not the abominations certain hyperbolic segments of the fanbase make them out to be.

Maybe, but that's still not cognitive dissonance as one doesn't preclude the other.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Maybe, but that's still not cognitive dissonance as one doesn't preclude the other.

Well it kind of is when people think Kurtzman is single handedly ruining Star Trek but ignore the fact that he's also partly responsible for the series that they do enjoy.