I’m thinking this is bad for Star Trek no matter what, because the first thing these entertainment companies do when they buy each other is cut budgets and cut projects.
Why was the man keeping his daughter in a pattern buffer demoted? The man who slaps around klingon dignitaries? The same guy who keeps illicit wartime drugs for, i don’t know, kicks I guess?
Sure, but you could make such points about half the Enterprise crew. They all do a lot of at least questionably legal things.
Think about how many times Kirk violated the Prime Directive and didn’t get in any trouble for it. And on top of that, he literally stole a Federation Starship and, while he did get demoted for it, he still got to be in command of a starship, which isn’t much of a demotion.
Meanwhile, Tom Paris is in a penal colony for being with the Maquis for a few weeks and, as far as we know, never killing anyone, let alone a Klingon ambassador. And then there was Raffi, who got a dishonorable discharge, became a drug addict, and then was readmitted to Starfleet at the rank of commander.
If you’re open to slightly less canon sources, there was a Voyager novel “Homecoming”, which pretty much covers this scenario. It’s generally positively received. Might help “scratch that itch” a bit?
I just finished my rewatch of Voyager and re-read both Homecoming and The Farther Shore, so I can weigh in here.
Respectfully, both books were traaaash. The author, Christie Golden, got almost all of the characterizations wrong - none of the characters sounded or behaved like the people I’d spent 7 seasons watching. The plot is beyond stupid, the main villain is laughably one-dimensional, her motivation was super thin and the motivations of her cronies were totally absent, our heroes are pretty dumb (like, really dumb), B’Elanna is off on some totally unrelated (and pretty pointless) quest, and the novels were full of typos, inconsistencies, and just generally careless writing. It very much read like a teenager’s underdeveloped fanfic. And it’s one story told over two books - the first ends in a pretty predictable cliffhanger, meaning that you have to buy both books if you actually want to read a complete story.
Seriously, if you want a laugh, go check out the one-star reviews on Amazon or GoodReads.
Not positively received. Actually quite the opposite.
I bought it in hardcover, then bailed on the entire Christie Golden Voyager series on the sequel.
A horrible return with heartbreaking situations for just about every beloved character.
I don’t truly blame tie-in writer Golden, or even Peter David who got tagged with responsibility for the most egregious plot and character point in the Relaunch universe version of the Voyager follow-up.
Paramount itself clearly had but dire restrictions on positives for the returning crew that only came off when Kirsten Beyer was allowed to undo the damage in her Voyager Full Circle series when she took the helm from Golden.
This makes me sad, but it also may be for the best. Lower Decks is great, but it has one of those premises that relies on the characters remaining stagnant. I don’t really want to watch 10 seasons of these characters being junior staff while still being at the center of the most significant events on the ship, or have Mariner’s character regress every few seasons so she can relearn the difference between questioning authority and self-sabotage. I’m not saying that’s happened yet, but they had to promote the characters once already. There’s only so long they can go before either their lack of development becomes a problem or the characters have to stop being Lower Deckers. I’d rather they end too soon than too late.
There’s only so long they can go before either their lack of development becomes a problem or the characters have to stop being Lower Deckers.
I don’t know man. I see your point and don’t entirely disagree, but… Lower Decks is an animation show. My point being that for example, Lisa Simpson is obviously very gifted academically, and has done a lot of things in her life, but she’s still a 2nd grader. As another example, Cartman, Kenny, Kyle and Stan have only advanced from the 3th grade to the 4th grade, and they’re pretty often involved in global problems.
So I really don’t think that would be the issue. Not for me, at least.
Yeah, but the Simpsons is a story of the week sitcom. Lower Decks has season long story lines with status quo changing results, like Mariner and Freeman’s relationship being reveled, or Rutherford getting his memory back. They even had to acknowledge in Season 3 that the Lower Deckers were kinda famous for all of the big events they’d been involved in. They definitely recognize the passage of time and consequences of actions, unlike things like Simpsons, Futurama, Family Guy, Bob’s Burgers, etc. (South Park is kinda a whole different beast, but I’d argue it’s changed so much over the years it could be considered 3 or 4 different shows at this point.)
I don’t know what to tell you man, there’s a difference in storytelling between Futurama and Disenchanted. I think most people would find it jarring if they went from season-long story threads and character progression to a weekly status quo reset.
Well, I’m trying to be polite as I explain that going from serialized storytelling to a, “Status Quo Is God,” sitcom would be an extremely weird choice that would probably ruin the show.
I’m trying to politely explain that I understand what you’re saying, but that I think that it is a false dilemma.
I don’t know if you watch Doctor Who, but it is notorious for not being consistent with it’s own established canon. One could say the established canon is that there is no established canon. This isn’t too unrelated, because Trek does a bit of it too. Some implications in certain episodes are left just ignored even though they’d actually have massive implications. Transporter incidents, holodeck mishaps, instant across the universe speeds, all that jazz. They need them for an episode, but weirdly the whole Trek world isn’t changed by the implications of something. Also unimaginably weird and universe upsetting things are pretty normal in Trek.
So why would it be that weird for the Lower Deckers to just be themselves for X seasons? Progress as needed, or don’t. You seem to think your opinions mean that somehow it would be so weird none would watch it. Not true. In the slightest.
So, cannon and serialization aren’t the same thing. Cannon is the general mythos of the show, while serialization is the method of storytelling. Specifically, it’s having a story unfold over many episodes, a season, or even several seasons. Dr. Who treats its cannon very lightly, but the show is fairly serialized, with small hints being dropped throughout the season on larger plot lines, even in stand-alone episodes (the Pandorica, the Silence, Bad Wolf, etc.). It also has large changes that last from season to season, regeneration being the most obvious.
Compare that to TOS, where everything is a stand-alone story and all the characters return to their status quo positions at the start of the next episode. Pretty much nothing carries over from week to week (except Harry Mudd, I guess). You could watch every single episode of TOS out of order and it would make perfect sense (aside from the two-parters, obviously). If you watched every episode of Doctor Who out of order, you’d wonder why the companions keep swapping, why David Tennant keeps getting replaced with Peter Capaldi, and God help you if you’re trying to follow any of Moffat’s later episodes.
Lower Decks is pretty serialized, with things like the Texas class ships and the Pakleds developing over the course of or in between seasons (the Locarno storyline is probably most involved of these). But, aside from story, there is a lot of character development that goes on over the series. Mariner has a completely different relationship with her mother, Ransom, and the Federation now than in season 1. Boimler is more self-assured and less obsessed with rules and rank. D’Vana is more open about her Orion upbringing and even changed career tracks. There’s a lot of growth and change compared to the characters in TOS.
So, I’m saying that if they keep going for too long, they’ll either have to promote these characters out of the lower decks or it will be weird that they’re still stuck at menial ranks. You seem to be saying they should just place the characters in a state of arrested development and only have them, “go be themselves,” in wacky adventure-of-the-week stories. I think that would be a very weird direction for the show to take after giving them 4 years of character growth, and I’m willing to bet most fans would feel the same. If you don’t, fine, then we just have to agree to disagree.
I’m sorry but I have a hard time respecting anyone trying to correct me about what canon is when they can’t spell the word.
Yes, I know what you’re saying, and I’m telling you why I disagree with it. I’m also amazed that you don’t understand that saying “I’m willing to bet most fans would” is also completely subjective. It’s literally the same thing racists use to base their incredibly narrow views; the idea that because they think something, other people do as well. Now let me be clear, I am most certainly not implying you’ve said or done anything racist, ever. I’m just talking about a general cognitive lack of empathy.
You’re just spewing your personal opinions, without any reasoning for them. I don’t see a point in continuing the conversation.
Yeah, my phone autocorrected from canon to cannon. That doesn’t change the fact that it is not the same as serialization.
If you want evidence that fundamentally changing Lower Decks from a serialized to adventure-of-the-week show would piss people off, I obviously can’t prove that, but funny enough, a show you brought up did try something like this: South Park. They tried serialization for a few seasons, which ended with the disastrously bad, “member berries,” storyline. The final episode of that season is actually called The End of Serialization as We Know it.
Anyway, maybe you’re right; maybe people want to watch Boimler whine about the captain not noticing him for 10 seasons. I doubt it though. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. Either way, your comments are becoming increasingly weird and pedantic and I’m losing my patience for it, so I’m just gonna stop here before I say something I regret. Have a good one.
That’s true, but there’s a line from season 7 of the Simpsons that feels relevant. Burns asks who Homer is for the 100th times and Smithers says something to the effect of, “Simpson, sir. All the recent events of your life have revolved around him in some way.” Lower Decks is starting to feel a bit like this. Watching the Lower Deckers be at the center of events that affect the entire Cerritos or even the whole Federation while still being nobodies is starting to get a little silly.
That being said, I don’t think the show needs to end after this next season either. I think they could get at least 2, maybe even 3 good seasons out this premise and these characters. But having the showrunners know they’re working on their last season and bringing it to a good conclusion isn’t the worst thing in the world. It’s definitely better than running until it jumps the shark and getting unceremoniously cancelled between seasons. And maybe we’ll get a good follow-up show, like something based around a Commander Mariner, or even a Lower Decks set in a different era (I would love a TOS style Lower Decks).
Yes but, who says the show couldn’t evolve around its cast and follow them on their path to become officers? I’d certainly watch that. Would even be interesting to see some slightly higher ranked non bridge officers do their thing in their daily lives.
Yeah, I’d definitely watch that, my point is just that it doesn’t really feel like that would be Lower Decks anymore, that feels like a new show (“Star Trek: Middle Management”?). Who knows, if there’s enough enthusiasm for Lower Decks, maybe we’ll get a follow up that’s like what you’re describing, or maybe Mariner and friends having misadventures on their first command.
And don’t get me wrong, they definitely could keep going with this show as-is for a while longer. But it feels like eventually this is going to stop being, “the untold stories from Starfleets low-ranking support crew,” and just be, “TNG but irreverent.” Which is also fun, but also a different show (in fact I think that’s called The Orville).
Fair. I hope, that they replace LD with something as good. The best Trek we had in a long time, besides maybe SNW. And with the other already announced future star trek shows n films not sounding as exciting to me, I really hope we get something new worthwhile
Lower decks is such a fantastic exploration of the universe of star trek.
It adds more than its own isolated contribution to the federation universe!
Literally the embodiment of star fleet.
I had written so much more, vut it van be simplified…
Voyager eventually had to come home, every star trek series has had it’s final goal.
Every ship has a lower deck crew of unsung hero’s - that’s at least 6 ships to explore (maybe more, maybe less… I don’t mean to faux pas). Never mind significant engagements (is movies)
Putting my mod hat on here- This post is about how Star Trek inspired you, not what you think of Whoopi Godlberg. Think of the quote as why Star Trek inspired someone, not who that someone is.
If you choose to focus on how Star Trek inspired you I think that’s great. If other members of the community choose to focus on Whoopi’s frequent shit takes, then this post is also about that.
It concerns me that you would brandish your mod card in an effort to influence narrative. Your comment sans ‘mod hat’ is perfectly reasonable.
Part of a moderator’s job is keeping things on topic and keeping discussion civil. Both are an issue in this thread. You can call requesting people stay on topic “influencing the narrative.” I would argue the topic is the narrative.
The content is an image referencing a Whoopi Goldberg quote, asserting that her words and actions are not at least partially ‘on topic’ is unreasonable.
Accountability and power dynamics were common themes in Star Trek, it definitely inspired me to hold people accountable for their words/actions, and to speak truth to power.
You are welcome to speak truth to power, but this thread is about how Star Trek inspired you. The second rule in this subreddit is be courteous. Having discussions unrelated to the topic is discourteous to Stamets. If you do not care for the courtesy rule, you are welcome to create your own Star Trek community.
Eh I wouldn’t say it’s breaking the discourteous rule personally but I do find it disheartening. I love Trek and love seeing how it inspires people. Inspiring them to just hate on a person is… Rough. Like don’t get me wrong. I have serious issues with Whoopi but she’s still an inspiration.
Unfortunately a lot of people who inspire others can be horrible human beings. Gene himself wasn’t exactly a peach.
$10,000 in 1967 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $92,911.98 today, an increase of $82,911.98 over 57 years. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 3.99% per year between 1967 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 829.12%.
I think it’s about the continuation of pay. If you made $100,000 this year but then make nothing next year… Your average really starts pulling that number down.
That also could potentially be justified by the fact that the US still has places named after Confederate generals though it’s harder to lock down as any sort of positive thing.
I mean Shatner is a total dick but I still love Kirk.
Meh, I think I for one can respect Shatner’s “dickery.”
As in-- he’s a really good actor who never wanted to be typecast as Captain Kirk, and is rightfully a bit short with ST fans on average. OTOH, it’s not like he goes out of his way to stir shit up or cast aspersions. More like he’s typically wanted to be left alone by Trekkies & Trekkers, and I can understand that.
He’s also taken the time to write a lot of interesting books, some of them biographical, some of them about ST, and also do an interview series.
I would never in a million years expect that I could walk up to a big star in public and expect to be treated like some long-lost friend of a fan. Some stars are amazingly good with that, but that’s on them.
It’s not about his reaction to fans. His Star Trek co-stars have a lot to say about how he was rude to them and just generally arrogant. He and Nimoy hated each other for years. They supposedly made up, but Shatner didn’t attend his funeral. His excuse was he was scheduled to do a fundraiser.
You’re in the ballpark with that stuff, but you’re also significantly off on a lot by my readings and understandings. For example:
Shatner’s co-stars were annoyed with him not because he was rude to them per se, but because he was a line-hog, which could actually cut in to their future opportunity & salaries because they had less content online via ST. I’m not trying to excuse that, but let’s call the situation for what it is, and let’s also not forget that he took ownership of that later on, and had good relationships with Nichols, Kelly, Nimoy, and Koenig, with Takei and Doohan scorning him.
Yes, he was arrogant, and I believe always was, but so are a tonne of leads, big stars, and very talented people. Yes, in an ideal world it wouldn’t be like that, but… what are you going to do? Reinvent humanity?
He and Nimoy did NOT hate each other for any significant years AFAIK. In fact from my readings they clashed early, found a way to work it out, and were in fact fast friends for many decades until they had some kind of falling out late in Nimoy’s life. Please let’s not get it twisted, dude.
Takei has outright said, repeatedly, that Shatner was a prick. Not line hogging or bad directing. That he was actively a shitty person to be around in any form and that he didn’t respect anyone around him. This is backed up by his having footage made of someone for a movie. Someone who, ahead of time, said he did not consent to the footage.
Just because other people are pricks does not give him a pass to be one. Plenty of people work in positions just like him and aren’t nightmares to work with.
That some kind of falling out is what I just described above. Shatner was making a Trek documentary and asked Nimoy to be a part of it. Nimoy categorically said no. Shatner then discretely recorded footage of Nimoy anyway, against his consent, and used that footage in his movie. Nimoy was furious and never spoke to Shatner again. Shatner then wrote a book about his friendship with Nimoy where his name was almost as big on the cover as Nimoys. In the book he admitted to doing this and them not talking.
In that same book, Shatner demonstrates repeatedly why he’s an asshole by such things as getting angry that Spock got more fan mail than him.l and says the only reason they had any basis of a friendship was because Shatner saw Nimoy be a hard ass with contract negotiations so they started negotiating together.
I have no problem with the accuracy of any of that, and appreciate you laying out the details based on your readings and knowledge.
For my part, putting this all together in to ‘Shatner is a bad person’ is going way too far. To me he’s got his positive qualities and negative ones, and the negative ones mainly involve him being an asshole and little more. Well, I can live with that and appreciate his art and career no problem as opposed to people like Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein, who were obviously way, way more than just assholes to people.
Hollywood is filled with egoistic jackasses, and Shatner’s behavior is just a blip on the radar to me. Not to mention, he’s great fun to mock in certain ways! To wit, the greatest blog I’ve ever read: shatnerstoupee.blogspot.com
Dude. The people he himself called friends also call him an unrepentant asshole and a bad person. If that doesn’t make him a bad person, the people knowing him best calling him that, then I genuinely don’t know what will prove he’s a cunt to you.
You can enjoy someones art while being aware that they’re a shitty person and just because Bill Cosby is worse doesn’t give Shatner any passes either. The fact you’re comparing the badness of people to dismiss Shatners shitty behavior is just mind boggling to me.
Okay, mister high & mighty, sinless judge of people,
go ahead and give your specific references, books and page numbers, interviews and timestamps with Shatner’s colleagues calling him a ‘bad and shitty person.’
Take your time, and I’ll keep an open mind.
When that’s done, I’ll duly compare that to what I’ve read and heard from interviews, and attempt to fit the pieces together.
EDIT: And yeah, you sound utterly obsessed at this point. As if it was a nuclear disaster that someone didn’t share your extremely negative take on Shatner.
This is your only warning. Keep it civil as per community rules. I don’t appreciate being personally attacked because you disagree with me. I questioned you. I never attacked you like this. Either drop it or change this behavior.
So you’re relentlessly attacking a 3rd person’s character, and are now offended that I’m mildly mocking you as a response, asking you to share proof?
As a ~25 year admin and mod across various sites & projects, you disappoint me.
As I see you’re a mod here, let me give you a suggestion-- be more professional and neutral, in future. Don’t be both a community leader and someone who viciously tears in to one of the franchise’s most beloved actors without proof, next time.
All I did was say be civil or drop it. I am being professional and neutral. If you are an admin and a mod then you should understand the basic responsibility one holds to make sure the rules are kept to. You actively violated the rules of this community. Accept responsibility for your actions and deal with the consequences of a warning. This is not a discussion about my moderator style or your credentials being something to excuse your behavior. It is a warning to stick to the rules of this community.
Moreover, if you wanted proof you could ask for it politely, respectfully and without any unnecessary ad hominem attacks against myself and I would be more than happy to provide the litany of evidence from his co stars as well as excerpts of his own book. Stuff that is abundantly well known, talked about consistently at conventions, by the actors themselves, and even have entire books written on the subject. You, however, never asked for it politely. Don’t try to shift the goal posts. If you want to continue this discussion on a polite basis then I’m all for it but I am not going to be insulted and lectured.
You are playing up the ‘ad hom’ stuff like nobody I’ve ever seen before. It’s gone from disappointment to embarrassment, frankly. Talk about a tiny bit of internet power being used to attack someone else, then hide behind the sub’s ‘rules.’ And of course, sidestep actual facts to back up your argument.
The fact that you’re so utterly clueless about all this indicates to me that you have a long ways to go towards being a self-aware, professional, neutral mod.
This will be my last reply to you on this matter, and of course you can do what you like with your mod toolbox. In any case, here’s a suggestion to be better in future, and good luck to you.
They made up? Everything I’ve said showed that Nimoy died hating Shatner. Shatner was doing a Trek documentary and asked Nimoy to be part of it and Nimoy said no. So Shatner used footage of him anyway. Considering Shatner being, well, himself I wouldn’t be surprised if Nimoy said fuck him after 40-30 years and walled the prick off.
Edit: Shatner said in his 2016 book that they never made up and never spoke for 5 years prior to his death. That book? About his supposed friendship with Nimoy.
Shatner did ask for Nimoys consent to be part of The Captains and Nimoy said no. So Shatner sent someone to a convention to record him and ask questions. Nimoy found out and was enraged and never spoke with him again in the last 5 years of Nimoys life. Shatner revealed it himself in his 2016 book about his relationship with Nimoy. In it he still down plays it by said “it was so small”.
I fucking hate that man. It’s why I am so insanely glad that I’ve gotten to spend a little time with a couple of my Trek heroes who are incredible people. Having Anthony Rapp on my PlayStation friend list? Glorious. I’ve messaged him so many times asking stupid DSC questions.
I have not, we’re both more into single player games. The dude is a beast though. 100%s or platinums every game he gets into. His trophy cabinet is just 100% and 2%. It’s insane.
I was thoroughly surprised when I found out but it makes sense. If you’re always working, a good video game can really fill some of the time and help take you away. I just assumed Anthony was more of a theater geek (probably because of Rent) than a nerd and leaned more towards physical things to do.
Shatner does not get a singular pass on the being left alone by Trekkies when he churns out as much ST stuff as he can to get paid. Like I’m not going to begrudge him for doing Trek stuff but he doesn’t get to sit in the captains chair and whine about how people don’t stop asking about the ship.
Feels like her original commentary was more born out of ignorance. And while I’m not condoning her actions, I understand them. And she’s since recanted and is apparently trying to educate herself on the matter, which is definitely better than some.
Then there’s the power element. When you’re in a position like hers, the word “no” will be repeated less and less, and that will definitely skew how you approach the world. Her getting backlash and a suspension could be the “no” she’s needed for years.
The story is mainly about Kelvin Kirk learning to be less of the cocky dipshit he still is at the end of '09. He’s still riding high from his victory over the future Romulans, so he really doesn’t respect the seriousness the Chair should command. You see this in the completely unforced error at the start of the film–Spock is (for some reason) dead to rights, and Kirk decides that the power of friendship is more important than the Prime Directive. Pike rightly reams him out for this, but the character thread really comes to a head when the USS Vengeance catches up to Enterprise and prepares to utterly destroy her. Much as I complain about the movie, I do like this little moment of helplessness from Chris Pine’s Kirk. Staring down the larger ship’s guns, Kirk can only watch helplessly and apologize for leading his crew to their deaths. It has the same vibes as Kirk from Generations–he didn’t believe he was dying until he actually did. Obviously, the general thread of Kirk actually taking responsibility for his crew culminates in him doing percussive maintenance inside of the Warp Core and dying for Enterprise’s sins. He gets better, but honestly I can accept this as the transition between cadet Kirk of the 09 and the actually quite competent Captain Kirk in Beyond.
Spock is the other big character in this movie. Sad as it is, this is the only real time we get to see Kelvin Kirk and Kelvin Spock’s friendship explored in depth. They were at each other’s throats for most of '09 and Beyond focused more on McCoy + Spock’s relationship. Spock’s friendship with Kirk is the main avenue through which they explore Spock’s classic dilemma of his Human vs. Vulcan sides. As cynical as I am about them recreating the end of WoK in reverse here, I will at least concede that Pine and Quinto did well with what they were given.
Main complaint, besides Cumberbatch being Khan: they totally wasted Bruce Greenwood’s Admiral Pike here. I’m of the opinion that Kelvin Pike was the best version we’d seen prior to Discovery, and probably did more than a little bit in reviving interest in the character. Here he gets stuffed in the fridge like half an hour in to make Kirk mad/sad. What a shame.
I love this take. Especially calling out the growth of the character. I’ve always seen the Kelvin movies as one trilogy, not individual movies. I never watched them individually which might help with that. If you see them all together you can really see the growth of all the characters. If they marketed it as a trilogy maybe people wouldn’t be as bothered by it. I’m not super surprised that what I see to be the middle of the trilogy is the most disliked though. Most trilogies have this problem with the middle movie being vastly underwhelming to the others. Even the Star Wars Original Trilogy had that problem. When Empire Strikes Back came out the reviews were clowning on it for that reason. The story didn’t really go anywhere.
Into Darkness feels like that to me. A second movie in the trilogy that spins its wheels on everything except for the character development. Nothing feels particularly awful to me, just sort of… okay. The only real problems I have is, as you mentioned, Pike being fridged almost immediately and how little buildup there was to Khans special blood. If you wanted to have the blood revive Kirk, go for it. I legitimately don’t care. We’ve resurrected people for less in Star Trek and I’m more than happy to suspend my disbelief over the tech, medical or otherwise, in Star Trek. If you can turn into a salamander if you go fast enough or if spaceships can become pregnant, then you can do basically anything else. I’m fine with that. But there was no buildup for it. I think there’s like two scenes from what I remember. One where Bones takes Khans blood and tests it and mentions that it’s weird, and one where he injects it in a tribble. Basically zero attention drawn to it until the tribble randomly starts breathing again and suddenly it’s a huge deal. If they had given like… 3-5 more minutes of random scenes throughout the movie of Bones talking about the weird blood or something I would not have given a fuck.
If your premise has characters facing danger somewhat frequently, it makes sense to have someone who can heal around.
Also, with so many unknown space-originating ailments, it’s creepy to hear a doctor of high rank say “I don’t know what this is or how to fix it.” It adds to the stakes of the show.
Stories often have an author-as-character, where the writer(s) use a certain wise character to voice their own opinions.
startrek
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.