Spoilers How literal is LD in your headcanon?

[Tuskin38]

Here's a quote from the Showrunner which I think is relevant to the thread title

https://trekmovie.com/2021/05/13/in...ek-easter-eggs-and-coordinating-with-prodigy/

"The way I’m handling Riker is the stories we’re telling on the Titan are a part of Riker’s history. They might be a little bit of an exaggerated version of it through our show..."

In the medium of the cartoon, the events are 'real', but are exaggerated.
He specifically talking about Riker, but it probably applies to the entire show.

I imagine if any of the Lower Deck characters ever appeared in live action (I personally think it's unlikely but still), they wouldn't act 1:1 to how they do in Lower Decks. They'd probably be a bit more serious, unless the live action production was also a comedy.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Trying to interpret Trek as something literal to the point that it should function like a living breathing reality like ours is just something I never did. It’s all just storytelling done in the style of production of either 60s TV, 80s cinema, modern streaming, etc.

I do get why some fans want to treat all Trek across as something tangible and consistent as if it’s an actual reality exists because that’s their escape from their own reality. Hence many rejecting how Disco updated the look of the 23rd century.

So is Lower Decks canon? Sure, the same way all Trek is. I just don’t try to make mental gymnastics in how TNG Riker fits in with the more hyperactive LD Riker.

 

[cooleddie74]

It's how I fit Roger Moore's James Bond with Timothy Dalton's. They're supposed to be the exact same person, that's what in-universe canon told me so I accept it. It doesn't always have to jibe because life doesn't always jibe with itself.

 

[fireproof78]

I do get why some fans want to treat all Trek across as something tangible and consistent as if it’s an actual reality exists because that’s their escape from their own reality.

I can escape just fine with each show.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I always think of what Vina said in “The Cage” in regards of reality.

 

[Qonundrum]

My feeling as well. And with the advent of the Mandalorian and Rogue One it has made Star Trek's approach far more apparent. Despite the propaganda Star Trek has updated its look as often as it likes, from TOS to TMP (at Gene's specific direction, especially on the Klingons) to TWOK, to TNG and so on. Star Trek has not held its specific visuals aside from very simple concepts with transporters, phasers, and general starship design. The specifics of those visuals were always allowed to be played with by design.

Star Wars, on the other hand, has not wanted to change, and will continue to hold on to its visuals in the name of familiarity, failing to recognize that Star Wars' biggest claim to fame was designing visuals that had not really been seen before.

Star Trek is not Star Wars and never will be. And, no, ST 09 or Discovery don't count.

Apart from the prequels, which were a huge change - in terms of visuals. The plot problems and stupid fart jokes, ostensibly aimed for little kids but kids (then or now) loved the original trilogy without needing to stoop but I digress-- Plot problems aside, the sequel trilogy I've rewatched more times... save for TRoS and TFA (the one that shamelessly copies 1977 (ANH) point for point and more brazenly with each passing scene; swapping a space station for a planet - complete with the same defect as well as attack scene and both for the third time in a row - is as simple as that...)

 

[Qonundrum]

LD is a strange mixture involving parody along with previously unexplored ideas, often taken seriously enough to create a nicer balance, using the backdrop of mid/late-24th century as a springboard. Would this show work if taken place in an unseen 27th century with less to rely on? How much humor relies on established events and what doesn't? Examples of both exist plentifully, but using Just-after-ATG-era as a springboard has rendered it funnier, IMHO.

/tuppence,OrTheAmericanVersionThereofSinceATuppenceIsTwoBritishPenceAndNotTwoUSPenniesSoNowAskWhyTheySayslangLike'SpendAPenny'

 

[Paul Weaver]

but kids (then or now) loved the original trilogy

Really? Do kids (in general) nowadays choose to watch Shatner and co rather than a modern series like Rebels or Bad Batch or Mandalorian (depending on age)?

In the 60s, kids had a choice of 3 networks and limited alternatives (computer games etc)

 

[Boris Skrbic]

The newer Star Wars installments tend not to be modern in too many ways because Star Wars is a period franchise, and since the OT is still better than most of what came after, I don’t expect different results if kids are (correctly) shown the OT first, then the PT and finally everything else. At most they may acquire particular affinity for productions created as they were growing up, but that shouldn’t change the overall ranking, because some writers and producers just happen to have greater skills than others.

 

[The Wormhole]

Do kids (in general) nowadays choose to watch Shatner and co rather than a modern series like Rebels or Bad Batch or Mandalorian (depending on age)?

Wut? Choose Shatner over modern day Star Wars? Did you make a typo, or am I missing something here?

 

[Paul Weaver]

Wut? Choose Shatner over modern day Star Wars? Did you make a typo, or am I missing something here?

Ignore me, I'm confused. I blame my covid vaccine.

 

[BillJ]

The newer Star Wars installments tend not to be modern in too many ways because Star Wars is a period franchise, and since the OT is still better than most of what came after, I don’t expect different results if kids are (correctly) shown the OT first, then the PT and finally everything else. At most they may acquire particular affinity for productions created as they were growing up, but that shouldn’t change the overall ranking, because some writers and producers just happen to have greater skills than others.

I think this is mularkey, and I say that as a huge fan of TOS. Much of the affinity we gain for certain things has, I believe, little to do with "quality" (like you can objectively nail that down) and more to do with who we are, where we are at in our lives, how we experienced the material.

If Lower Decks had premiered ten years ago, I'm not sure I would have the same affinity for it. Releasing in 2020, it was a comic oasis in a COVID-induced nightmare, and lackluster (in my opinion) recent live-action Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

more to do with who we are, where we are at in our lives, how we experienced the material.

I think it is more this but really people want to have some sort of objective standard to justify their distaste, especially in a franchise they have a particular affinity for.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

But that’s like saying there is no such thing as a great writer, a great cinematographer, a great composer. Whatever effort they’ve put into their creations, whatever special talents they have, none of that makes a difference in the end. Audiences are basically ignorant and simply don’t appreciate shot composition, character arcs or memorable musical themes intertwining.

Therefore, people can put in a little effort or a lot of effort (wasted, of course, since why make an effort if you don’t have to?) and it doesn’t matter. They all get merit badges from someone, they’ve all been just as good and it just so happens that the OT was subjectively liked by the right people at the right time, but otherwise it’s no better than the PT and whoever says different isn’t watching TV and movies correctly or something.

No. As I said, we really need to distinguish between what’s actually better by certain specific criteria as perceived by an involved, attentive audience (even if we can’t exactly put a yardstick on it) and what one grew up with, or feels like watching at a particular time, or is simply a fan of in general and tends not to miss it regardless of quality.

 

[Sci]

My suspicion is that where we are in our lives affects (but does not determine) our ability or willingness to connect with a work of art, but that the merits of the work itself are what determine whether or not that work inspires an enduring connection with a large number of people. Prime example: there were elitist critics in the 1590s and 1600s who considered Shakespeare to be crap for the masses, but those who were willing to engage with his work realized that he was a master storyteller whose plays could stand the test of time.

 

[fireproof78]

No. As I said, we really need to distinguish between what’s actually better by certain specific criteria as perceived by an involved, attentive audience (even if we can’t exactly put a yardstick on it) and what one grew up with, or feels like watching at a particular time, or is simply a fan of in general and tends not to miss it regardless of quality.

Quality is great and all and I'll take it if possible. But, the most quality work cannot force a connection with me. I thoroughly enjoy well written stories but that doesn't mean I can force another person to engage with it. So, people can distinguish all they want but all that's doing is coming across as elitist and saying people should not enjoy because of quality.

 

[Deks]

Here's a quote from the Showrunner which I think is relevant to the thread title

https://trekmovie.com/2021/05/13/in...ek-easter-eggs-and-coordinating-with-prodigy/

"The way I’m handling Riker is the stories we’re telling on the Titan are a part of Riker’s history. They might be a little bit of an exaggerated version of it through our show..."

In the medium of the cartoon, the events are 'real', but are exaggerated.
He specifically talking about Riker, but it probably applies to the entire show.

I imagine if any of the Lower Deck characters ever appeared in live action (I personally think it's unlikely but still), they wouldn't act 1:1 to how they do in Lower Decks. They'd probably be a bit more serious, unless the live action production was also a comedy.

Pretty much.
The quote actually sums it up well... its canon (meaning the events did happen), but 'exaggerated' for the format of this particular show (aka, its a cartoon), so the characters would in fact behave in line with SF officers that we know in live action if they were to be shown in say other live action series (but apart from that, I suspect other series could reference LD in dialogue only).

 

[Richard S. Ta]

It's consistent within itself which is all I ask of any Star Trek series really.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Ransom totally tried to eat the Ceritos.

Also some human flesh.

 

[Oddish]

The best parody doesn't transform existing characters completely, it just twists them so that established traits are out of proportion. Like making Harry Kim ridiculously gullible, having Deanna discuss "hiding something" every five words... or having every convenient object transform into Odo.