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

Regarding the original question... for me, anyway, the answer is YES.

LD is Trek presented as a parody. While canon characters (like Riker and Paris) are in the position they probably have in canon, I don't think we necessarily have to take the events of the series itself (the zombie plague, for instance, or the magical dog) as canonical.

 

I never understood the need to determine canon status to ensure enjoyment commences.

That said, LD is as canon everything else.

 

Nope. It's a comedy that takes place in the Star Trek Universe. Being a comedy (but not a parody) doesn't make in non-canonical. Not sure why anyone would think otherwise. Canon isn't about format or style.

 

I once got downvoted to oblivion on Reddit for saying that while I regarded the rest of Star Trek to be canonical with regards to Lower Decks, I didn't regard Lower Decks to be canonical with regards to rest of the Star Trek.

It's not because I dislike Lower Decks; far from it. But I do feel it would be hard to take some of what happens in Lower Decks seriously in the same universe as the other Trek series; in much the same way as finding out that Scrubs and House exist in the same universe would be quite difficult to reconcile.

On the other hand, the rest of Star Trek does contain such gems as Dr Crusher's randy space ghost, Tom Paris: speedfreak salamander, and Quark's temporary sex change shenanigans, sooooo...

 

How does that work?

How can the rest of Star Trek be canonical to Lower Decks, yet Lower Decks not be canonical to Star Trek?

How does the canonnicity work one way?

What is it about the events of "Lower Decks" that is incompatible with the same world that had Tom Paris hyper evolve into some type of Salamander and mate with Janeway, who then produce off-spring on some random planet in the Delta Quadrant that the rest of the senior staff didn't bother recovering and turning back into humans.

or a random flower merged Neelix & Tuvok into Tuvix and they were able to use the Transporter to undo the genetic merging of Tuvok & Neelix?

Or have Q exist and mess with Captain JLP randomly?

 

I feel as you do. Lower Decks events need not be considered canonical unless another Trek declares them so.

I once got hammered for dating to say that IN SOME WAYS, Chakotay would have been a better captain than Janeway was (better voice, and he actually promoted people).

 

Yeah, that's not how it works.

 

Yeah, if that was how it worked, nothing except TOS would be canon!

 

The warp 10 salamander kids can't be "turned back into humans" since they never were human to begin with.

 

Zombie Vulcans was an episode of Enterprise... And the Magic Dog was just the Next Generation episode Evolution by another name...

 

Clearly you have to fly at warp ten in the opposite direction to turn them into humans.

 

I take it very seriously and I love it. Easily the best of the new Trek shows.

 

Me personally? Not really but the show started off pretty bad but when it came to the last 2 episodes of season,1 that’s when I started to like it and season 2 even gets better especially with all these Easter eggs.

 

Why couldn't it work one way? TOS is canon to TNG but not the other way around. In real life, it's also entirely possible source A acknowledges the authority of source B, but not the other way around. (example: a conspiracy theory site citing 'famous scientists').

 

You're conflating whatever Lower Decks is with the rest of Trek when it's just plain crap.

Actually, considering my opinion of Lower Decks, yeah, little difference...

 

I mean, taking or not taking something seriously is an entirely separate question from whether or not it's canonical.

LD is canonical. ViacomCBS owns Star Trek and defines LD as canonical; therefore it is canonical.

Is it in strict continuity with the rest of ST? Well, sure, why not? Yeah, LD is an adult sitcom instead of a realist/naturalist drama, but so what? "A Piece of the Action" is no less ridiculous or comedic, and it's in continuity.

 

Why? I'm not aware of any particular reason Scrubs and House, M.D. couldn't take place in the same universe. I don't see why two different series being two different formats should preclude them from taking place in the same fictional universe -- it just means that the shared continuity can encompass storytelling using different styles.

Also, heck, Lou Grant and The Mary Tyler Moore Show took place in the same universe -- the latter was a sitcom and the former was a hard-hitting drama!

... "Better voice?"

 

That’s true, it’s rare, but it’s happened a few times here and there.

‪‪‪‪I immediately thought of the medical drama Trapper John, M.D., a spin off of the military/medical sitcom M*A*S*H (coincidentally, I’m wearing a M*A*S*H t-shirt at this very moment).

A much more obscure example is the shortlived, and perhaps ill-conceived , P.I. sitcom Beverly Hills Buntz starring Dennis Franz as the eponymous hero, spinning out of the police drama Hill Street Blues.

edited to add: Oh! ‪‪I just remembered another, *weird* example. The hour long legal procedural dramedy Ally McBeal was equal parts about her personal life and the law firm she worked at, and featured a case a week as most shows in its genre would. Early on in the show’s very successful run someone said “hey, let’s recut the episodes we have, use scenes that didn’t make the original episodes, and remove all the scenes in the court room, and working on cases, and the more serious relationship stuff, and make a half hour sitcom out of it,” and they did. And they called it Ally. It didn’t even make it a full season, but it wasn’t really a sitcom spin-off of a procedural legal dramedy, it was a crass cash grab, and not a full show.

For me, ‪‪I have no issue with Lower Decks being both lighter comedic fare, and existing in the same canonical universe as the rest of Star Trek.

The Janeway-Paris warp lizard baby litter, Space Lincoln, these are as absurd as anything in Lower Decks. And from Spock and Kirk’s back and forth in The Voyage Home about liking/not liking Italian food, to Jake Sisko and Nog trying to find his dad a baseball card, Trek has always had sitcom-y moments and plots sprinkled in everything else we love about it.

The real world is both absurd and tragic, silly and serious, at the same time, so ‪‪I see no reason to cordon off fictional worlds to prevent the same variety of stories from existing in a shared space. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, and all that.

Circling back to the thread’s original question, not me, personally, no. ‪‪I take comedy fairly seriously, in spite of its silliness. ‪It’s something ‪‪I care about, and seeing a franchise ‪‪I love like Trek embrace the potential they have making shows within a comedy framework is something ‪‪I really enjoy, and ‪‪I think strengthens both the brand and the universe in the long run.

 

^ This.

 

To me, LD fills the gap that was left by Futurama several years ago.
And yes, it is canon. Because the canon is the body of work, no more, no less.

Kor