• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Lower Decks General Discussion Thread

Tim Thomason said:
They're synonyms. Synonyms exist in every Star Trek series, even if you discount my Human/Terran/Earthling/Earther example (and I checked to make sure those terms were used onscreen).

Star Trek fandom isn't that rigid that they can't except something as fundamental as this.
Click to expand...
Have you met Trek fandom?
 
Dealing with inconsistencies in continuity is exactly what headcanon is good for. For example, as I've said in the past, my own headcanon is that the events in Star Trek occur in universe, but not necessarily exactly as dramatically depicted in the shows. Gets around issues like the UT working all the time (even when no humans are around), recasting of actors, use of lighting that wouldn't actually be helpful in a real workplace, etc.

It's another step entirely though just to use "headcanon" to argue that something that happened onscreen didn't really happen in-universe because you happen to not like the implication.
 
eschaton said:
Dealing with inconsistencies in continuity is exactly what headcanon is good for. For example, as I've said in the past, my own headcanon is that the events in Star Trek occur in universe, but not necessarily exactly as dramatically depicted in the shows. Gets around issues like the UT working all the time (even when no humans are around), recasting of actors, use of lighting that wouldn't actually be helpful in a real workplace, etc.

It's another step entirely though just to use "headcanon" to argue that something that happened onscreen didn't really happen in-universe because you happen to not like the implication.
Click to expand...
This is similar to my view. I'm willing to work with most presentations but ultimately I don't decide what is or isn't happening.
 
I'm sorry if I offended anyone here with my comments. It wasn't my intention to do so. (I'm mentioning this because I got the feeling that some folks here were perhaps thinking that I was being insulting towards the writers and producers of Star Trek, which I wasn't trying to do whatsoever. As I said before, I like Lower Decks. I think it is a hilarious show.)
 
Last edited:
eschaton said:
Dealing with inconsistencies in continuity is exactly what headcanon is good for. For example, as I've said in the past, my own headcanon is that the events in Star Trek occur in universe, but not necessarily exactly as dramatically depicted in the shows. Gets around issues like the UT working all the time (even when no humans are around), recasting of actors, use of lighting that wouldn't actually be helpful in a real workplace, etc.

It's another step entirely though just to use "headcanon" to argue that something that happened onscreen didn't really happen in-universe because you happen to not like the implication.
Click to expand...

The way I see it is, this is an account of a fictional history being written about by different historians with different biases. So any thematic or tonal inconsistencies are just two of those “Historians” having a different perspective on the events.
 
eschaton said:
Dealing with inconsistencies in continuity is exactly what headcanon is good for. For example, as I've said in the past, my own headcanon is that the events in Star Trek occur in universe, but not necessarily exactly as dramatically depicted in the shows. Gets around issues like the UT working all the time (even when no humans are around), recasting of actors, use of lighting that wouldn't actually be helpful in a real workplace, etc.

It's another step entirely though just to use "headcanon" to argue that something that happened onscreen didn't really happen in-universe because you happen to not like the implication.
Click to expand...

You know what, this is actually what I meant to say but I wasn't smart enough to articulate at the time so instead I just straight out said that this show isn't canon to me because, well, I don't really know why I said that. I'm a bit of a dumbass I suppose lol.

But yeah this show *is* canon to me now.
 
Something funny I noticed recently while I was checking something out on Memory Alpha. In their Most Popular Pages list, Roga Danar is listed there. You know Veritas is the reason for that.
 
Boimler had an amazing arc throughout the series. Episode 1, he's been on only five planets (counting Earth and Vulcan) and is incredibly naive and a suck-up, never breaking the rules, always obeying orders. We see the first crack in this at the end of that episode, when he decides not to report Mariner for her behavior.

Episode 10, he's on the ground helping Mariner distribute supplies to the Betans, and at the end of the episode, to tie it all together, he's the one on the Titan who has all these crazy adventure stories (which we saw) that the other Lieutenants are impressed by.
 
I’m not wild about the idea of splitting time with the Titan, but then I wasn’t wild about the Lower Decks idea prior to season one. So we’ll see where it goes...
 
I imagine Boimler will somehow end up back on the Cerritos by the end of the season 2 premiere, and probably back at the rank of ensign, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Darth Thanos
new Star Trek: Lower Decks comic
Replies
10
Views
1K
MarcKle1964
M
Commander Richard
  • Poll
Spoilers Star Trek: Lower Decks 5x10 - "The New Next Generation"
16 17 18
Replies
352
Views
21K
Qonundrum
Qonundrum
B
Spoilers Post - Lower Decks crossover potential
Replies
0
Views
226
BohandiAnsoid
B
Precious Tritium
Tawny Newsome and Justin Simien developing new live-action Trek series
39 40 41
Replies
812
Views
47K
Birb-of-Prey
Birb-of-Prey
ColdFusion180
Star Trek: Lower Decks - CF080 - "Lower Deckfully Clean"
Replies
0
Views
118
ColdFusion180
ColdFusion180
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top