I mean, fair enough, but I’ve never heard anyone use tankie as…well, not a pejorative. Like, I’ve never heard a liberal call themselves a, “libtard.”

The worst thing for a tankie like me was running here to get away from the insane msn-pilled discourse, finding some actual leftists, only to have have leredditors chase me down sayin’ i am following them.

Uh…tankies and leftists are not the same thing (though the liberals on Political Memes don’t seem to understand the difference). Tankies are authoritarian-apologists. It was coined by British communists who wanted to differentiate themselves from pro-Soviet communists (specifically, communists who were defending the Soviets sending tanks into Hungary). In the modern sense, it’s used to describe communists who defend authoritarian socialist or communist states. If you don’t feel compelled to justify Stalinism, the Tiananmen Square massacre, or the Uyghur genocide, you’re probably not a tankie.

No, Cohen wrote a ton of verses that weren’t recorded (he claimed he had a notebook with 80+ verses), but most of what people consider, “extra verses,” are from Cohen’s live version. In fact, Cale, Buckley, and pretty much every version leave out two verses:

You say I took the Name in vain I don’t even know the Name But if I did, well really, what’s it to you? There’s a blaze of light In every word It doesn’t matter which you heard The holy or the broken Hallelujah

and:

I did my best, it wasn’t much I couldn’t feel, so I tried to touch I’ve told the truth, I didn’t come to fool you And even though It all went wrong I’ll stand before the Lord of Song With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah

I mean, that’s an aspect of the song, but I wouldn’t say that’s what it’s about. The first two verses are full of religious imagery, mostly about David (playing music for the angels, creating the word Hallelujah, Bathsheba) but also Sampson being betrayed by Delilah (“she cut your hair”). Then the rest of the song shifts to first person narration, and while there are still some religious allusions (the holy dove and the Lord of Song verse that no one remembers because it’s not in the John Cale version), it’s just about two people who’ve fallen out of love.

The shift from third-person description of David to the first person narration implies that David is not the subject of the song. The author is just using elements of David’s story (and Sampson’s I guess) to recount how his own love, which was once an expression of joy like Hallelujah, has fallen apart (“It’s a cold and it’s a broken hallelujah”). That’s my read anyway.

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).

This is the Big Dig in Boston. It was a massive improvement. It was also a decade behind schedule, $21 billion over budget, resulted in 6 arrests on fraud charges, and killed a motorist.

Edit: Oh sorry, I just noticed what community this was posted in. I meant to say, “We did. It’s pretty now…hooray!”

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).

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.

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.

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 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.

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.)

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.