Check Out New Images And A Fun ‘Voyage Home’ Connection For ‘Star Trek: Lower Decks’

We didn’t think it was coming until the Comic-Con panel next week, but on Sunday CBS surprised us with the release of the first trailer for Star Trek: Lower Decks, the new animated comedy headed to CBS All Access on August 6th. We have the new images they released today, plus a couple more Lower Decks updates.

New images

The first new image shows the four main “lower decks” ensigns, who will be the focus of the show. It shows Rutherford, Tendi, Mariner, and Boimler sharing a moment in what looks to be a bar or lounge, possibly on board the USS Cerritos.

Eugene Cordero as Ensign Rutherford, Noel Wells as Ensign Tendi , Tawny Newsome as Ensign Mariner and Jack Quaid as Ensign Boimler

The second image just features Rutherford, the cyborg engineer.

Eugene Cordero as Ensign Rutherford

CBS also tweeted this new animated promo today.

Too much LDS in the 2020s

For decades, fans and official Star Trek have used three-letter abbreviations unique to each show, such as TOS for The Original Series, VOY for Voyager, and so on. Star Trek: Lower Decks should be no different, and now there is definitive word on what that abbreviation will be: LDS. The official word comes from CBS Consumer Products executive John Van Citters in response to TrekMovie contributor Aaron Harvey on Twitter. Van Citters says he conferred with Lower Decks creator and executive producer Mike McMahan on this very important abbreviation question.

Van Citters is referring to the funny, iconic scene in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, where Kirk is explaining the oddness of Mr. Spock to the 1980s sensibility of Dr. Gillian Taylor by saying, “He’s harmless. Back in the sixties, he was part of the free speech movement at Berkeley. I think he did a little too much LDS,” mistaking the drug LSD for “LDS.” Now that joke will live on in the abbreviation of the first Star Trek comedy series, Lower Decks.

 

Merchandising!

The official Star Trek store is jumping on the Lower Decks hype train, rolling out some new branded merchandise. Well, maybe not a train—more like a single car. The shop is currently only offering a Lower Decks T-shirt for $19.95 and a Lower Decks coffee mug for $14.95, but it’s a start. You can get both the shirt and the coffee mug in any color you want, as long as it is black.

ICYMI:  The Trailer

And check out our way-too-detailed analysis of the trailer with over 70 screencaps to spot all the Easter eggs and more.

Lower Decks coming on August 6th

The new half-hour animated comedy series Star Trek: Lower Decks will premiere on Thursday, August 6 on CBS All Access. Following the premiere, new episodes of the series’ 10-episode first season will be available to stream weekly on Thursdays, exclusively for CBS All Access subscribers in the U.S.

Lower Decks will also air on August 6th in Canada on CTV Sci-Fi Channel and be available to stream in Canada on Crave. It has not yet been announced where and when Lower Decks will be available outside of the USA and Canada.


Keep up on all the Star Trek: Lower Decks news here at TrekMovie.com.

Subscribe
Notify me of
170 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Cute.

I’m hoping the writers and producers of Lower Decks didn’t find TVS gags to be good. If they did, that doesn’t bode well for the show at all. I’m hoping the show will actually cause me to laugh. Not groan and do facepalms, as TVH did.

For me, TVH is classic, great Star Trek, and one of the few movies that didn’t force a villain into the plot. I’ll take that movie any day over this rather obvious kiddie cartoon take on Trek that everyone seems be fawning over before we’ve even seen one actual ep.

Last edited 24 days ago by Methuselah

In this thread, self-professed Star Trek fans take a dump on one of the best-loved Star Trek movies, and characterize their fellow fans as sycophantic children for showing enthusiasm for a new Star Trek show.

Nobody hates Star Trek more than Star Trek fans.

I sometimes think the only chance there is to please a certain subsection of the fans, is to erase their memories of TOS or TNG (or whichever shows they still consider canon), and just let them rediscover their beloved version of Trek as if it were brand new all over again.

My suspicion is they’d hate it.

LOL!

Probably with a passion, that would drive them to troll every executive involved behind the scenes until the day they die. Haven’t heard the “raping my childhood” trope in a while….

The claim that being wary of Alex Kurtzman is due to hating Star Trek is slightly akin to the claim that being wary of pmurT dlanoD is due to hating aciremA. In that, both claims smack of too much DSL.

No, they (and me) just grudgingly transfer affection to FIREFLY, which no matter how bad the science, has its heart and soul in the right place.

Fascinating. I love TVH, and it’s not because I’m on LDS.

Popularity often doesn’t = good. Case in point…. The Voyage Home. Not having a villain doesn’t mean it will be good Trek. Again, TVH is proof of that. I’m forced to accept it as canon but that doesn’t change that it was a garbage movie.

And if a Trek entity earns to be dumped on, then it should be. TVH and STD are some of the worst Trek I’ve ever seen. Not going to judge LDS based on just the trailer. I’m still hoping it will be good.

Last edited 23 days ago by ML31

Hear, hear! I’d love to see more villainless Star Trek.

If only!

“Everyone seems to be fawning over before we’ve even seen one actual ep” is the same stupid sentiment as “You hate it and you’ve never even seen it” – my god can you please reach the entirely logical, sensible conclusion that maybe people enjoyed the trailer and they’re looking forward to something? You reek of negativity, like you’re trying to smear people who got joy out of a trailer. If that’s the kinda person you are, maybe you should go rewatch a show called Star Trek

Take a chill pill, dude. I was reacting to TVH being trashed and comparing that bizarre trashing to people beloving a show no one has seen yet…makes no sense?

Last edited 23 days ago by Methuselah

No, you chill, dude! Your language is uncalled for, because your comparison doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. People who trash TVH have seen it. People who are trashing Lower Decks have seen a trailer. Some people liked the trailer, and you implying that “everyone is fawning over it” without seeing an episode, and that it’s hard to understand is, well, hard to understand. You can state your opinion that you didn’t like the trailer without passing judgment on the people who did.

My language??? Please stop with all the fake drama. Give me a break. LOL

All I’m saying is I’m tired of ppl on this site (and the whole internet) trying to put ppl down for liking something. I’ve been vocal about my loathing toward Picard, but do you see me saying things like “Everyone likes it for some reason”? Do you see me trying to shame ppl who like what I consider to be a trash show? No, I don’t pass judgment like that against those ppl. But when you post things like “everyone is fawning over a kiddie show” it is, in my opinion, a pretty judgmental thing to say – and seems to me like the fake drama starts with comments like that

If it looks likes a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s most probably a duck. Yes, in my opinion this looks on the level of “Archie and Jughead meet Star Trek.” That is MY OPINION — it looks like a kids cartoon.

But going back to the original post by ML31 that I was responding to, he said, “Not groan and do facepalms, as TVH did.” So where was your outrage on that? You give that a free pass, yet defend a show you have not seen yet and get all over my case over a similar negative comment by me? Seems inconsistent?

Last edited 22 days ago by Methusalah

My only reply is that I have actually seen TVH. I haven’t seen LDKS. I’ve only seen the trailer. Which doesn’t inspire me but hasn’t managed to turn me off to it. But I will still wait to see the final product before dropping my opinion.

No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes.

I love Voyage Home. And so do you.

See… You, likely a non professional writer, used that non-funny line in a more clever way than it was used in the actual film. That is how badly written that film was.

Your opinion is… well, there’s no accounting for taste.

Too bad. You followed up your clever comment by repeating something I said earlier. Unfortunate that is how you respond to a compliment.

Except that he’s right.

It’s a great, classic Trek film.

Last edited 23 days ago by Methuselah

You have a very low bar for what is considered a classic Trek film.

Your opinion on this film sounds like someone who has spent way to much time at a bar.

Gee… That one hurt. (eyeroll)

To each their own, but for me, THE VOYAGE HOME was masterful.

The Voyage Home is and always will be my favorite TOS movie. This show, well I don’t know if it’s a need of the few or the many, but is isn’t a need of mine. That said, it’ll still probably be around warp 10 times better than the horrific monstrosity that is Picard. And I’m a TNG, DS9, VOY girl saying all this.

(And yes, warp 10 was a shout-out to that horrible Voyager episode. I’m in a punny mood.)

TVH is not my favorite but it is still my fourth favorite film after First Contact. I just love that it’s such a feel good movie, probably the most feel good one in the entire movie series.

As for Picard, sadly it didn’t quite get to the level a lot of us was hoping for but we have to keep in mind most Trek shows didn’t in their first seasons. I will say Picard is a bit different since it’s basically a direct sequel to TNG but with a new crop of people running it.

For me, I can say I probably had an issue with every Trek show in it’s first season with the exception of Voyager oddly. But ended up liking them all. I’m hoping Picard will be on that list in the future.

You brought up “feel good” Trek films and I went down the list and couldn’t really find one. The closest I can come up with is TMP but that was mainly because of its hopeful ending. I don’t think Trek works well in the “feel good” category. It rarely worked when they went light in any of the series’.

Well it works in TVH lol. Obviously you just see it differently. Again fine, but that is definitely a feel good movie to me. I’ve only seem TMP twice in my entire life and the last time probably over 15 years ago so I can’t judge it other being bored out of my head when I did watch it.

To cite an actual CLEVER Trek episode to stand in contrast to the vomit inducing Voyage Home…

“Mr. Barris they like you. Well there’s no accounting for taste.”

What does that acronym stand for?

Yes, and I would hazard to guess that 95% of Trek fans would agree.

Yes, we know ML31 that you continue to not only loathe TVH, but consider it an embarrassment.

Nice that you’re consistent ;)

I do wonder though why it’s so hard for you to accept that very many fans love TVH and it’s humour, even the “growers” that you feel the need to hope on first here to kick of the thread discussion with that.

As I said on an earlier thread (at probably too much length), humour is tricky and doesn’t cross cultures that well even subcultures in the same country. More, the humour that does travel well is often the most basic.

Last edited 24 days ago by TG47

Actually as one of the resident international Trekkies here, the humor in The Voyage Home definitely crossed over to our culture as I personally love that film and I believe it was one of the more popular Trek films when it came out back in the day in Turkey (a country that is not known for being Trekkie)

I love TVH without loving all the humor in TVH. But it was sweetly done, whereas the humor in TFF was laughing AT the characters instead of WITH them, and I hated that.

The two things I like most about TVH are 1) that the characters seem to be more IN character than they were in the other movies — probably because this is the one where Leonard Nimoy was given full control — and 2) the fact that there’s no villain. Or perhaps human selfishness and short-sightedness are the villain.

The success of TWOK seems to have blinded the directors of modern Trek films to the fact that one can make a good movie without a villain bent on revenge. Bless you, TVH, for showing us another way.

Funny you say that about TFF. TFF has its flaws and is certainly not that good but it managed to succeed somewhere without even really trying in a place that TVH did not and was actually trying to. The gags in TFF mostly worked. I felt I was laughing WITH them in that opening sequence. And I still chuckle when Scotty bumps his head. Yes, it’s a slapsticky but it works. Especially combined with the irony of what he was saying when it happened.

The problem with TVH is that I wish I was laughing period. I wouldn’t care if it was at them or with them. At least it meant something entertaining happened. And besides, were you really laughing with Scotty when he was trying to talk to the Apple computer? I found it to be sigh inducing but if one found it funny they certainly weren’t laughing with him. They were laughing AT him because he was such an incompetent boob in that scene. That’s where the bulk of the attempts at humor came from. It was the fish out of water thing but our heroes were too oblivious to understand their circumstances. This was NOT the same crew who were competent and did their best to understand the worlds around them. This was a band of yo-yo’s who seemed to have zero idea of what era they were in one moment and then were super, even overly capable of utilizing and even running 300 year old technology. The characters were absolutely NOT themselves. It was as if they got thrown back in time when they were all 11 years old. And even then I would imagine they would act better. Only Spock had an excuse. What was McCoy’s excuse for running around a hospital as if he was high on cordrizine? The only thing different was he was calling everyone savages instead of murderers. I could go on and on here and have in the past. The fact that there is no on screen villain (the real villains were the screenwriters and producers who approved of this drivel) is nice but that doesn’t mean the movie will be good. I would like to see a Trek feature that doesn’t have a villain that actually WORKS. I’m sure it can be done. We just haven’t seen it yet.

I will agree that because WoK is so highly regarded that is the standard future writers were shooting for. Which is unfortunate. But Hollywood loves to copy what works. So it’s no mystery why Trek films have had so many revenge stories. And quite frankly, if TVH had worked as well as some fans think, one would think that formula would have been attempted again at some point. No one has tried and I don’t think anyone wants to.

I see the humor in TVH very differently than you do. To me, the gags were on US — the people of the current era. We were so primitive (in 1986) that we had computers you couldn’t talk to. We were so primitive that we thought Russians were enemies instead of people like us. We were so primitive we thought whales belonged to us. Silly modern-day humans, to think such things!

Whereas in TFF, I didn’t laugh when Scotty bumped his head; I thought it was mean-spirited to try to show him up by having him bump his head right after he talks about how well he knows the ship. Having the helmsman and navigator get lost was mean-spirited, too. Having Spock mispronounce a common word was totally ridiculous — Spock? Really? To me, THAT was the movie that made them all look like boobs.

So we’ll have to agree to disagree about this.

TVH made the most money of any of the TOS or TNG films, so I don’t think Hollywood considers it the failure that you do. Not that earnings are the best mark of a movie’s quality, by any means, but Hollywood goes where the $$$ is.

Try as I might, I didn’t see the gags were on us. As I said, the humor they tried to go for was the fish out of water thing. Our crew were out of their element. But instead of understanding their circumstance and trying their best to blend in and get around in it, they were presented as know-nothing do-do’s. The humor was in them not knowing anything about the era they were in. Even though in the past when they time traveled they always went out of their way to try and blend in as best they could. They understood the tech level of the era they were in and didn’t go around announcing to everyone they met how out of place they were. But in that film, suddenly they all turned into imbeciles the instant the landed in 1986. (and let’s not even talk about the dumbness of leaving the ship cloaked on the ground).

They understood the concept of enemies. We know Soviets were people like us but the enemies were the governments at the time. No one felt that whales or any wild animals belonged to us. Our crew would have realized much of this before heading back. And even if you buy into the idea that 1986 is primitive to someone from the 23rd century they likely wouldn’t see us that way. They are supposed to be more enlightened than that. At least, that is how they had been portrayed until that film.

None of the gags in TFF were remotely mean spirited in anyway. There is a difference between being ironic and intentionally trying to put someone down. It was ironic that the navigator gets lost on the ground. It’s ironic that Scotty while praising himself for his intimate knowledge of the ship hits his head on a low hanging beam while not paying attention. I honestly don’t see what is so mean about those gags. It was actually mean to show Scotty try to talk to an ancient computer. That showed him to be just ignorant. Those laughing at that are laughing at his lack of awareness. Yes, missing a beam also shows a lack of awareness but the humor comes when he is praising himself for his knowledge. At best its a stab at arrogance but I think it was more harmless slapstick than anything else.

Regarding box office, it was STID that has made the most money overall. And TMP that made the most money when adjusted for inflation. TVH sits at #4 on that list. Barely ahead of WoK. Yet WoK still gets the critical praise and remains the benchmark others shoot for in Trek films.

The “gags” in TFF didn’t seem mean-spirited TO YOU. You can’t say that they didn’t seem mean-spirited TO ME, because you are not me.

As I said before, we should agree to disagree. I’m done talking to you about this.

Well, I explained why it would be odd to see those gags as mean spirited but OK I guess….

I re-watched TVH a few weeks ago. I still like the parts of the film set in the 24th century, but the parts set in the 20th century have not aged well. The computer scene is a great example (really, did Scotty not stop to think how much the timeline would change by giving out the formula), as is the bus ride (seriously, those other passengers would have thought they’d witnessed a murder). I don’t see how people can complain about the humor in TFF when more than half of TVH is full of it. Then there is Saavik. Why did they drop the character?

With regards to the character of Saavik I think the producers couldn’t reach an agreement with Robin Curtis. I don’t know the whole detail of the situation but I had heard that in one version of the script it was gonna be made clear that Saavik was pregnant with Spock’s child as a result of the events of the previous film.

I can accept that. The entire time travel thing just never worked on any level. But I would argue that even forgetting about the absurdity of an ultra advanced civilization sending a probe on a 200+ year journey just because whale songs stopped, but I am wondering how those whale songs are even reaching them in the first place. Not only does sound not travel through the vacuum of space but those sounds don’t even leave the oceans!

I would assume that when they’d last visited the planet that they would have left monitoring devices on earth when they were last there. The nature of the genre requires the audience to use their imagination.

If the audience must use their imaginations to fix gigantic plot holes then how’s this for imagination? Why not just create new whales? How you ask? Use your imagination. Why not just bring out your brand new ultra weapon they’ve been developing and blow the whale probe out of the sky? How you ask? Use your imagination. Spock said if they recreate the sound but not the language they would be responding in gibberish. So get a linguistics expert to figure it out. Obviously whales are extremely smart and have a language. How you ask? Use your imagination.

Thats why it’s called science fiction ML31 and not science fact. There’s no such thing as warp drive, or transporter beams or Klingons you have to use your imagination to accept them. The very nature of the genre, that it is built on fictions created out of storytellers imaginations means that you could literally dismiss any and every element of the genre that you dislike following your logic.

Star Trek is for the most part not hard science fiction and clearly TVH did not set out to change that. It was a fun movie with a conservationist message at it’s core. The plot of the movie focused on them finding a solution to the threat the planet faced it wasn’t remotely concerned with questions like how did this alien race monitor the whales in the first place?

To be perfectly honest I don’t even recall them determining that the whale aliens had even lost communication with humpbacks on Earth. All Starfleet knew was that this probe was trying to contact humpback whales and that it’s search was having a devastating effect on earth. Did the aliens come to Earth because they had lost contact with the humpback community living there or was it just a routine population check when they were passing through? We don’t know and it doesn’t really matter because they’re just a mcguffin. It’s realistic enough to assume that Starfleet might want to answer all of these questions but that’s another story. Just not one that’s compelling enough to tell to a movie going audience but there is a non canon novel that answers those questions if that’s of interest to you.

Now you dismiss using imagination to fill in details not explained in the story but your happy to use it to discredit it i.e your imagined fiction that they could just get a linguistic expert to decipher the ‘language’. Might I remind you that the films plot actually revolves around the whales being extinct, therefore there’s no live subjects to study not to mention the fact that all their systems were going haywire due to the probes interference and that when the Enterprise crew came back to the 24th century they would have returned to pretty much the same moment they left meaning that the whole attack is only happening over a very short period of time. Using imagination to fill gaps is not the same as using it to completely rewrite the narrative.

Even science fiction has to set up their own rules. Even if the rules are outrageous. They must still be followed. If they do not set up the rules it is not up to the audience to create their own story. The best the audience can do is interpolate based on what we know. For example, unless the rules of their universe dictate otherwise, we know that space is a vacuum. Therefore we know that sound cannot travel through it on its own. The logic the audience follows is that which their world sets up. Not each person’s personal reasoning.

I wouldn’t use the word “fun”. That has implications that were not present. Let’s say it was “light hearted” and included a “message” with all the subtlety of a sledge hammer. Yes, the plot was them finding a solution but before that can happen the movie must set up the problem. The issue there was that problem made very little sense so it got off to a bad start to begin with. The problem rested ENTIRELY on questions like “how did these aliens monitor whales to begin with?” That was the first thing I was thinking when I saw it. It was also considered by my friends I found out upon talking about the film after. If I recall, the whale probe was sent because the whale songs stopped. Again, I wonder how they know this. I would argue it DOES matter. The threat needs to be credible. If its not it’s harder for the audience to accept the stakes. Literally nothing in this film worked. It barely even feels like a Star Trek film. It feels like a bad TV movie that stars the Trek actors playing different parts in some sort of Trek-ish ripoff. Given this failure, it is understandable that the plot holes are legitimately questioned. It’s quite common to criticize things in presentations that don’t work that you might let slide in ones that do. I honestly have no desire to read anything that even remotely relates to that film but thank you for pointing out the novel that makes the attempt to fill in the blanks. Must be quite a read.

Your attempts to find hypocrisy in my comment have failed. There is none. My attempts at coming up with an explanation is not my attempt at trying to make the plot work, but rather a way to point out that using one’s imagination can literally rip anything apart. You say use my imagination for how the aliens can hear the whales. Instead I decide to use my imagination to keep the crew from having to go back in time in the first place. The imagination argument is a spiraling discussion that goes nowhere. That was the point. It’s one thing to fill in the small gaps like “how did they get across town?” It’s quite another to use it to cover up gigantic plot holes that stop the story from working, like “That guy was underwater with no air for 20 minutes. How is he still alive?” You do something like that it HAS to be explained away.

I’m not accusing you of hypocrisy ML31, I tend to find your posts to be honest but I do think your viewpoints can be a little rigid. What I was trying to say is that I think your position might be flawed because your argument is actually underpinned by an assumption that you believe is a fact. Before I address that I’m going to take a step back and remind you that my original remark that sparked this debate was a brief comment defending this particular plot point only. I’m not making a case for every creative choice they made in the film and I’m not telling you you’re wrong for not liking the film. I like TVH but I recognise that like much of Star Trek when looked at as a whole it is flawed and I respect your right not to enjoy it.

Why do I think you’re making an assumption? Because you’re drawing a conclusion from two separate variables i.e that the whale song stopped 200 years ago when they became extinct + the probe showing up to investigate = that the alien race have detected that the whale songs have stopped. You consider this a plot hole because sound cannot travel through space on it’s own but this assumes that the aliens that sent the probe are aware that the whale songs have stopped. We cannot possibly know that because they have no way of communicating with the probe. No dialog is established with the aliens that have sent it and only the flimsiest of motives can be established by the crew. Your argument also assumes that a sophisticated alien race that is capable of interstellar travel and has technology capable of crippling Starfleet couldn’t have left devices behind to monitor the whales despite interstellar communication being the norm in Star Trek and the franchise being proliferated with races that covertly study less primitive species.

Maybe there’s a line in the script in which Spock conjectures a connection between the two variables but it is not investigated during the movie and a conclusive answer is not given so it literally could be anything. You call this a plot hole and I call it a macguffin – it’s a device used solely as a catalyst to set the story in motion. It doesn’t need to be explained in detail and it doesn’t violate any rules as there’s numerous in universe reasons that could explain it away.

I agree Corylea,

That is the one thing I love about TVH, no uber-villain. I don’t know why the Star Trek movies got so obsessed with a villain? I will say at least TOS did have other movies like TMP, TVH where it’s not about some guy wanting to destroy the universe. It’s the issue with the TNG and definitely the Kelvin films.

They all seem to think TWOK model is what works in films although TVH was actually the most successful TOS film financially. So its odd nearly every film since seems to employ some villain for some reason. I wish they tried and thought outside the box a little more like they do in the actual shows. My guess is they think they need it to drag in the non-Trek fans maybe.

.

Last edited 23 days ago by Tiger2

TVH was directed by Leonard Nimoy, and the idea for the story was his, whereas TWOK was written and directed by a man who’d never had any connection with Star Trek before he did TWOK. I wonder if perhaps the powers that be at Paramount think that only a Star Trek insider could write something like TVH, and if you’re putting people like Abrams in charge of the movies, you need the kind of plot a non-insider can create. *shrug* Not sure about this, just a theory.

The fact that WoK was written and directed by someone who had never seen Trek before I think was a good move at the time. Trek needed something new if it were going to be successful. I think that was a contributor to why it came out so good. I honestly think in most cases it is not wise to listen to actors takes on what is best for their characters and the stories they are put into. More often than not, they do not have the best ideas. Trek case in points… Stewart wanting Picard to be more of an “action” guy. And Nimoy coming up with his silly whale story.

Sorry Tiger, but TMP was the most financially successful of the TOS films. Both in overall box office and when adjusted for inflation. But no one seems to want to copy it. Which is a bit odd because Hollywood LOVES to copy success. But I think that WoK is considered the benchmark not just because of box office (it still did pretty well there but not quite as good as TVH) but because it also had the long lasting acclaim. It is still considered the benchmark Trek to this day. Even STID copied, er, played homage to it.

Uh, I don’t know where you are getting that? TVH was clearly the more profitable one.

TMP: Budget- $35 million. Worldwide Gross: $82 million

TVH: Budget- $25 million. Worldwide Gross: 109 million.

And yes when you adjust it for inflation TMP comes out a bit ahead. HOWEVER so does it budget lol. By a much bigger margin.It literally DOUBLES in today’s dollars compared to TVH budget. And on top of that, the $35 million was always considered the ‘conservative’ budget. There are reports it actually went as high as $45 million with all the delays and FX. But we’ll stick to the ‘official’ version.

It’s really no doubt which movie was the most profitable. Especially because TMP cost so much, the slash the budget by 2/3rds when TWOK came around. I can’t believe all that money for TMP at the time and I can still barely stay awake watching it lol.

But now I think about it, yes TWOK was probably the most PROFITABLE film out of all of them. It didn’t make as much as TVH overall but it’s budget was half of that one so it did very very well at the time.

I am actually too tired and lazy to go look up the numbers again. (Been very busy with work this week) But for quite some time TMP has been reported as the most profitable film of the series.

Well that’s clearly not true though.

It’s basic math and numbers. Maybe it made more video sales or something but in terms of B.O. TVH is without a doubt.

Again that’s literally why they slashed TWOK budget so much because it didn’t meet expectations considering the sheer amount of money they spent on it.

OK. Took some time to double check. And what I found was TMP does indeed beat TVH at both overall BO and when adjusted for inflation, including when one removes the reported cost of the film. TMP reportedly cost $35 million. Although I read reports that it reached 40… And had a total take of about $175 million. Giving it a take of $135 mil if we use the 40M figure. TVH, by contrast cost $24 million and had a total take of $147 mil. Making their difference $123. And it is also quite possible TMP took in even more than reported as the practice in 1979 was that only some sources reported national BO and only for the first few weekends of each movie. Variety only reported BO in major cities. Not nationwide at the time.

But when adjusted for inflation the take is even of greater difference. Even if one adjusts the budget to conform to inflation as well. Adjusting both the budget and the BO to inflation for 1979 to 2020 for TMP and 1986 to 2000 for TVH you get TVH at 289.2 mil and TMP at 512.4 mil. And this was using the $40 million budget.

It was my understanding that the budget was slashed because TMP was reportedly the most expensive movie ever made at that time and Paramaunt did not think the return was worth the investment. But they still were interested in a sequel. So….

Last edited 22 days ago by ML31

My comment wasn’t about what other people think. I accept there are those who like it. The total of those folks is irrelevant. I’m sure there are people who don’t care for WoK, too. That doesn’t change my take that I feel it was still the best feature so far. My point was that if Lower Decks aims for TVH I believe it will fail miserably. It’s a comedy. They need to aim for gags that actually are funny. I’m honestly not interested if the jokes resonate in other countries. I only care if it resonates with my personal funny bone. It’s not my job to be concerned about such things. I am the consumer here. Not the creator.

And believe me, I was only first because of the luck of the draw. When I saw the article, no one had yet commented. I was not sitting around waiting for a TVH themed article so I can be the first comment and rip it some more.

Last edited 23 days ago by ML31

Since TVH (assuming that’s what you meant by TVS) is one of the most beloved movies in the franchise and rightly so, I hope they DO find the gags in that movie to be good. Your sense of humor is clearly off the mark.

My sense of humor is pretty darn good, I think. I find Monty Python to be hilarious. Frasier was one of the best comedies in the last 30 years. The early Simpsons were quite funny as was early Family Guy. Rick and Morty was really funny but the 4th season was hit or miss. But when it was on it was stinking hilarious. South Park was darn good for a while, too but now their zingers are rare.

But there was not one laugh in TVH and if that is the bar they are aiming for it does not bode well for that show. At. All.

Funny how tastes vary. I agree with you on Frasier (except I would say THE best, not one of the best) and early Simpsons. But I detest Family Guy and and can take or leave Monty Python. I like Star Trek IV, but it isn’t my favorite Trek movie.

Last edited 23 days ago by Thorny

Interesting that you are lukewarm toward Python. In my experience it is pretty rare to find people who take the middle ground. Most either get it and find it really funny or don’t get it at all and just don’t like it.

I can say with some authority that at the very least, the writers are all genuine Star Trek fans who know and respect the lore. That already elevates their efforts against the live-action shows, as far as I’m concerned.

But that is was we were told about Discovery as well. If true it only proves that being fans and respecting the source material is not enough to produce good Trek.

It’s true. No argument. The only difference I can offer here is I actually know and have worked with a bunch of these writers and can vouch they know their Trek. May not make a lick of difference in the end, for sure. Won’t know til I see the show myself.

Also, I hear Kurtzman and Goldsman have had minimal involvement with this one, so that bodes well too. They were pretty much left alone to do their own thing. That, and the post-TNG/pre-Picard setting of the show means they won’t have to rely on all that shitty canon we now have to live with.

It’s crazy in just three week we’ll have a new Trek show in the family! :)

yay… trek IV is my favorite… when trek 2 is not my favorite… or first contact or or 2009 trek… LDS looks really fun. will be a fun addition. i wonder how long the episodes are. i recommend btw the new scooby do and guess who? for comedy animation fans… it’s a blast. recreates the humor from the 70s shows they used to do and is very self aware and modern.

There are 10 half hour shows. At least that’s my understanding.

LDS… I love it. Now CBS just needs to make STD an official abbreviation.

ST has rarely done comedy well outside of TOS. They could do a lot worse than demonstrate an awareness of one of ST’s strongest films.

I actually think DS9 did the best comedy (although they could’ve done a few less Quark episodes ;)). I thought TNG was good too a lot of times. But I know, opinions.

Notice that the the waiter in the still is wearing a uniform similar to that of those in Ten Forward on the Enterprise-D. The image I’ve attached is from the episode, “Lower Decks” that served as an inspiration for the series.

4A3AD36D-C13C-4567-9E25-BB0AA84A36D6.jpeg
Last edited 24 days ago by Eric

Wow, great eye!!

I been watching a lot of the guys on Trekyards and they said it best, this show could be the most in canon show we had since these new shows started. They pinpointed how so much of what we have seen so far has been on point with the TNG era (unlike Discovery and TOS era ;)).

Now the show can still suck but it looks like it’s going to be fun to catch the tons of call backs it looks to have.

Last edited 24 days ago by Tiger2

YouTube disabling all comments and thumbs up/down on the trailer for this garbage surely says it all. This show will crash & burn with such ferocity that nuclear fusion will occur. In a way, I’m actually grateful, as this will speed up Kurtzman’s long overdue departure and even adds weight to the notion of decanonising all ‘Trek’ from 2017 to the present day.

Well at least the Kelvin movies are still saved!

Aside from pre-timeline divergence Kelvin and Franklin bridge windows and the dreadful misjudgment to change Khan’s ethnicity, I don’t actually mind the Kelvin movies. I think they work pretty well as fun popcorn action flicks and were generally well cast.

Pike’s Enterprise had a bridge window when it was shown in TOS. Not sure if that’s where the idea came from for the Kelvin timeline, but it has prime timeline provenance.

Decanonizing 3rd gen Trek is not going to happen, except in the heads of the usual gatekeepers.

You’re probably right. As John Lennon famously said: You may say that I’m a dreamer…

Pike’s Enterprise had a bridge window??? You mean the dome? That’s not exactly a viewscreen window…

No, I mean a bridge window at the front, where the viewscreen is. The pilot version of the Enterprise shooting model had a lit window at the front of the bridge module.

Sully, I get that this isn’t for you, and the same for a significant subsection of fans, but why so angry?

And why is turning off comments on YouTube an issue? There seems to be a group of fans who come out to boards and YouTube just to vent and rant and kill the franchise. Some call it “hate-watching” . I don’t think it’s helpful for new fans to be bombarded with that negativity. It ends up as a kind of gatekeeping for anything new for the whole franchise.

I haven’t viewed you in that category, and have enjoyed many of your interventions here. So, I’m cool with hearing your take, but all I’m getting from your post is 1) you don’t like it; and 2) it’s very existence makes you angry.

I’m not sure that this is going to be my favourite style of humour since mine leans to British, but I really appreciate the love and attention to detail that I’ve seen so far.

My spouse was laughing steadily out loud at the trailer, and one of the kids is very intrigued. So, definitely a very positive reaction here.

Given that, I feel all the more that I need to keep saying that I’m keeping and open mind and am thrilled to have so much new Trek content to look forward to even if, like Tiger2, I definitely have specific critiques and concerns about each new series.

I appreciate your response here TG47, which I have taken as an opportunity to try to reflect upon why I am so closed minded about the newer iterations.

I never intend for my take to be a slur upon different opinions – IDIC and all. I nevertheless accept that the majority of my posts have been uber negative in nature, which is a quite sobering realisation as I consider myself an optimist in the real world!

The fact is that I just cannot get past comparing the newer series with all that has come before. If this is a nostalgia-fuelled failing, I will accept it as such. I know I ought to be judging the shows with a clean slate and on an individual basis, but I find this to be a real challenge based on my opinion of the last few years’ output.

As a science teacher, I am evidence based in what I do and as such I’m trying to be as objective in this instance also. Having done some soul searching, my findings are as such:

For me the USP of Star Trek was that it had deep roots in real science. I was seduced by the idea that it might someday play out for real in terms of technology and – by extension – sociology. As such, for me it grates when Kurtzman era shows get basic physics wrong; sonar in space, cold fusion producing ice, magic mushroom realms. I accept that the Roddenberry/Berman eras also had failings; the nonsensical Threshold and – digging deeper – phasers which shouldn’t make noise in the vacuum of space. Hollywood and TV tropes will always impact the science accuracy inevitably. It is factual that the most modern iterations are greater riddled with inadherence to the science as a proportion of the minutes & hours they take up. My frustration in this area seems to have spilled over into the canon inconsistencies arena, which again is higher in volume than can be said for the admittedly imperfect Roddenberry/Berman shows.

In a nut shell, I would love to be wrong about Discovery, Picard and Lower Decks. I will happily eat humble pie if I am wrong. The problem is that I feel instinct getting the better of logic in my appraisals. I envy your mindset and hope it is rewarded.

Last edited 24 days ago by Sully

Thanks for the thoughtful response Sully.

Interesting that, as a science teacher, it’s what you perceive as “not-valid” science that’s bugging you about Picard and Discovery, rather than the poor way they show the process of science being done.

We’re a household of researchers, and sincerely to us the science in the new shows isn’t generally any more inaccurate or speculative than in TOS or the 90s series.

What’s getting up our noses instead is that the new live-action shows often do a very poor job at showing the way scientific research and experimentation in engineering are done. B’Lanna and Janeway may have riffed in technobabble, but the process of brainstorming, innovating and trying out new technologies felt right.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, you have a point about Discovery and the spore drive. What is your beef with Picard in terms of scientific accuracy?

Please Lower Decks is not as bad as you think.

You’ve seen it already?

What kind of question is that. You know the answer. Star Trek at its best.

How would you know, if you haven’t seen it?

Faze Ninja, dude no one has seen it it to judge. C’mon man, a lot of us are being positive on it but you sound like you’re already watched the first season. It could be great, it could be bad, we simply don’t know yet.

oh boy…. it will crash, be canceld and speed up kurtzmanns end like discovery and picard… not at all.

Bitter much?

Prefer lager tbh

Can you imagine if it was a alpha white male choke-holding an upset looking black girl?

You’re one of those, “if a woman can slap a man, he can punch her in the face” type equal rights folks, I guess.

To your question, if I can imagine a person who spent many years watching Star Trek without ever understanding its subtext- and then actually see that made manifest- well, I can imagine anything.

Reminds me of the episode where Kirk kisses a woman and then punches her in the face. In the same episode it is suggested that Uhura gets raped.

Not at all.

I’m just getting a bit tired of these new Trek shows literally dripping in identity and SJW politics, with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

IF the roles had been reversed the white guy was handling the black girl like that, there’d be outrage. Genuinely makes no sense to me.

Then I guess you don’t understand the concept of “racism” because it should be clear why it’s more problematic when it’s white-on-black violence

I’m aware of the history, but two wrongs don’t make a right. We should be pushing for equality, not telling one group it’s ok to do somthing to the other group but not vice versa.

Talk about reading into something that isn’t there. She isn’t putting Boimler in a headlock, she is putting a supportive arm around him in his dejection and saying “buck up” or maybe giving him a little bit of a hard time. No violence here. Move along.

All I’m saying is just for a moment consider the reaction if the two roles were reversed. And how much outrage there would be. Why should the opposite be ok?

Nonsense. You’ve simply made up your own context to a screen grab as an excuse to spout vitriol. We literally have no idea what is happening or being said in that scene but I think we can be fairly confident that she’s not actually choking out Boimler. Your adding of 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5000 doesn’t shed any light about what might be happening in the episode, it merely serves to betray your own prejudices.

All I’m saying is just for a moment consider the reaction if the two roles were reversed. And how much outrage there would be. Why should the opposite be ok?

Photos are a thousand words. Your interpretation is different from my interpretation. If a white man choke holding a black girl, people will say Black Lives Matter and all that.

Exactly. So why is it ok for the opposite to happen?

Old Trek told us equality is the thing to go for.
NuTrek tells us to go for “social justice” instead.

Combine that photo with what we’ve seen in the trailer already, she seems to bully him all the time. Great role-model???

She does not bully him. She cheers him up.

Last edited 23 days ago by odradek

I’m not really sure if you are serious or not. That is not true for the content in the trailer, and when I read her facial expression correctly, it’s also not true for the phot above.

That is, unless we have very different approaches of cheering someone up. ;)

they are acting like brother and sister exspecially if one is older then the other

Well, perhaps. But you can’t really tell me that you’d like to be in Beumel’s position, thinking:”Nah. She’s just the sister I never had.”

I’m serious. I can’t see the trailer because I”m geo blocked. So I can’t say anything about that. But my prediction for the scene in the picture: Boimler is angry but not about Mariner but something outside of the group. In this moment he made a decision and Mariner says something like go for it. I agree with michelle that there is a sibling vibe between the two.

Last edited 23 days ago by odradek

Is the version posted on StarTrek.com blocked in your region as well odradek?

We can’t see the trailers posted in the tweets in Canada, but the ones on the official website aren’t blocked for us.

Yeah, thank you much for the tip. The animation is better than I expected. I’m very happy with it so far. :D

I don’t know what kind of workplace you are at, but physically touching other than a very brief handshake is absolutely forbidden where I am. So many people have been sacked where I work for anything more.

also social justice is basicaly fighting for equality excpecially with rights for women and lgbtqa+ and other ethicitys sincewhite men are the ones that get treated better with respect and pay then white women do or people of other ethicitys do and same with staight cis men and women also get treated with more respect better rights and pay then lgbtqa+ people do
i can attest to this being the case in the usa especially with the current administration but i have a feeling this is the same in lots of other countries also

“also social justice is basicaly fighting for equality”

I’m glad you said that. I have no doubt it started with that idea and that there are many people out there who still would want exactly that: equality. And yes, you are right there is still much to do in that regard.

But the thing thing is there are some haters out there who twisted things, and US entertainment listened. Nowadays, a “strong female character” is only a “strong female character” when she’s “disrespectful” to white man – because they don’t deserve any respect anyway and need to be put in their place. And that is not equality, it’s just swinging the pendulum in the other direction. For a couple of years women could be strong without bullying anyone else. Janeway is an obvious example.
Currently I’m making my way through season 8 of “Murder she wrote” and obviously, Jessica Fletcher is the by far smartest person on this show because she’s the star and therefore the one who have to solve the murder mystery – not some police officer. And that approach doesn’t irk me one bit – because Jessica Fletcher never treats anyone with disrespect.

For Lower Decks, that would mean: I wouldn’t mind at all Beumel being weak and Marina being strong. She can also be the smartest person around solving all the problems – fine with me. But I’m not fine with that disrespect we see everywhere nowadays with the excuse being “it’s social justice”.
This approach won’t solve any issues, it’ll just make them bigger. No one wants to be treated as a second class human being. Black people don’t want that, women don’t want that, and guess what… white men are supposed to be ok with this and this is supposed to work longterm… really???
I just hope some common sense on all sides involved in this mess resurfaces so that we might get back on course for “real” equality. And Star Trek should or could be leading the way again, but it doesn’t do that. It sits back, watching was everyone else is doing and copying it.

Unfortunately you make some valid points and that there are definitely extremes in all sides here. I think the misconception here is the idea that it is ok as a society to be disrespectful to other people because that is the only language they understand and that is the only way to show power or to change the status quo. In fact I disagree, thinking, respecting, strategizing, looking at the long term goals should be more important to change the society because humanity doesn’t like being pushed from every side. This leads to more defensive and violent positions.

This is just about the silliest criticism of Discovery I’ve ever read. The only person whom Burnham was disrespectful to was Capt. Georgiou, an Asian woman. (And that occurred at the behest of a white man, Sarek, who adopted her.) She cooperated with Capt. Lorca until she realized who he was, and was downright eager to work with Capt. Pike.

Nowadays, a “strong female character” is only a “strong female character” when she’s “disrespectful” to white man

Criticism of Discovery? Now you’re putting words into my mouth.
Even in the quote you put up there, I said “Nowadays” – and since 2017 quite a bit changed because there’s a lot of “Hype” ; everyone wants to be the most woke and tries to top what came before. And three years is like an eternity in that regard. Batwoman seems the best example for that kind of evolution.
And for certain folks, enough is never enough.
So, Burnham might be fine, but she certainly is not the one leading the field as far as pushing certain agendas are concerned so she’s also not the one certain folks would pick as No.1 role model – she’s more like a Mary Sue.
“Picard” did dive more into certain politics (although very badly), and it’s the newer show and the trend I mentioned is very obvious in that show – and as for “Lower Decks” – it remains to be seen. Perhaps Marina & Beumel become a great team over the course of the season?

Really?

The green lady is already my favorite character. I’m watching Lower Decks for sure. People keep saying bad things about this show but I want to believe. Star Trek: Lower Decks deserves the right to exist and thrive.

It is the most anticipated show from my side. Sadly does not seem that I can see it any time soon.

I can see the first episode and then go to college after that. My schedule is getting pretty busy.

Schedule and plan for the fun times Ninja. You won’t do well if you don’t (you’ll just cheat and feel guilty instead enjoying a break).

A an approach that works for many is to figure out how many hours a week you need to study beyond classes, and then make sure you get that done, for real. (2 hours of studying for each hour in class is a good rule of thumb, plus extra for major papers or before an exam.)

If you get 2/3s of your weekly study time done by Thursday evening, you can reward yourself with some television.

Well, in freshman year of college I have chemistry, precalculus 2, and economics classes with a lecture. Might do Calculus 1 in the spring. I won’t have any free time anymore sadly.

Chemistry and economics? What kind of degree are you headed for?

I’m only a freshman but interested in computer science, economics, statistics, or maybe even chemistry majors.

Taking standard classes this year and advance from there.

Smart combination, actually.

Keep going with the solid disciplinary foundations across sciences, social sciences, and data sciences. You’ll have a lot of options later.

By the way, by my estimate if your school is typical, you’ll have 13-15 hours a week of lectures and 5-7 hours of labs/tutorials/recitations (whatever your school labels them). So, 18-22 hours in class plus 36 to 44 hours of independent study/homework. Total week of 54 to 66 hours, with extra on top for exam weeks.

It means you’ll be working at least one weekend day, but it doesn’t mean you won’t have free time for other activities whether sports, music or watching Trek.

College is not that easy. You understand that.

Well, I’m interested in computer science, economics, statistics, or chemistry majors. I’m a freshman so let’s see what happens.

I have a PhD but I didn’t study in the US so I’m not really familiar with the system there. When I started studying you selected your major right from the beginning which I found difficult because I was interested in different things. Sure enough, some people switched majors later so maybe taking standard classes first and settling on a major later isn’t such a bad strategy. I definitely support the idea of exploring all your interests (if you can afford it). You will probably have to narrow your focus once you get a job so enjoy the opportunities that college offers you to learn more diverse subjects.

It’s very different Diginon. People get into doctoral programs in the United States coming from completely different undergraduate studies. Engineers switch to economics, or physics grads to law.

For first year bachelor’s students, the key thing is to get a good base. Many US schools require a core of arts or sciences the first year. For science degrees, economics is a fairly standard first year humanities requirement.

Canada is somewhere in between Europe and the United States, with French language universities in Quebec requiring early specialization, but some of the English ones maintaining a very general first year program from which students may be encouraged to explore options for specialization in upper years.

To pull this back to Trek, I’ve never been able to figure out how Starfleet has a four year Academy, but that the officers come out with advanced specializations.

And K-Kirk said he would do it in three!

This was back in the stone age but I changed majors after my sophomore year and it ended up taking 7 years for me to get through. This included time at JC to get some GE out of the way and save some money. However I also was forced to pay for it on my own. So I was working a lot to avoid too many loans. Also took two breaks to work full time and save. But those breaks aren’t counted in my total school time. Looking back on it, I have no idea how I had the energy for all that work and school.

Latter Day Saints?

That would be BSG.

There is a new Battle Star Galactica on Peacock.

Battle Star Galactica and Star Trek is like potato and potatoe.

Battlestar Galactica is on Peacock. I heard there is a new Battlestar Galactica coming soon.

Last edited 23 days ago by Faze Ninja

Any reference to TVH is ok with me! Love that film, and it shows the showrunners are at least attempting to respect what came before, something they’ve very much failed to do with DSC and PIC thus far, imo.

The funny thing is, the one show that Alex Kurtzman seems to have less involvement with is the one show that seems to treat canon with more respect.

I think that’s because McMahan seems to be a huge TNG fan and made it clear he wants to honor that era of Star Trek. Now how he does it may still be up for debate but it’s clear he’s a huge Trek nerd first and foremost. He named his dog Riker for pete’s sakes. Even I wouldn’t go that far lol.

“made it clear he wants to honor that era of Star Trek”

Ftwiw, thats what the Colonel, Akiva and Chabon said and say all the time, too, but they seem to operate from a whole different dictionary than us legacy fans ;)

That’s true too obviously. Sure, we won’t really know until we see the show itself, but at least in terms of the look of the universe (even if its animated) does feel more true to Star Trek than DIS and PIC did. Although PIC gets some leeway because its 20 years past Nemesis and this show is only 1 year after that movie so that basis alone it has to look closer to the TNG era I guess.

As for Discovery, well, you know my feelings on that show so I’ll leave it there. ;)

LOL, LDS is awesome.

Cool

Not enough LDS honestly. This show better be a psychedelic masterpiece – I love the trippy artistic trends of the past decade, and the growing realization that shrooms are actually the safest drug :) super looking forward to LDS

Overall this strikes me as the most American of all Trek shows, apparently laser focused on a very narrow (and, as others have remarked, altogether more childish) audience than expected. From an outside point of view, I dont expect it to do well in foreign, especially non-Western markets. I’m very mildly interested in cartoons anyway but would have preferred one with a more geeky kind of humour anyway, instead of the action- and emotions-focused one we seem to be getting. Given that these sentiments are in line with Discovery though, I shouldn’t be too surprised.

I think it’s a given considering those involved that it will have geeky humour but I would imagine that they they’ve put out a trailer that’s designed to reach as wide an audience as possible. Whether they’ve been successful in that, I don’t know as I’ve only looked at articles on geek sites where the reception was always going to be divisive.

” I would imagine that they they’ve put out a trailer that’s designed to reach as wide an audience as possible”

Maybe! The question though is if this trailer is not rather narrowing the audience (by repulsing part of it) rather than widening it by casting as wide a net as possible.

I don’t want to sound too dismissive here given I asked for less grimdark and more family friendly Trek but I don’t think this is an either-or proposition; I think few people felt the only way to do a true “21st century TOS/TNG” (in spirit) was to do a ‘kiddie cartoon” but they wanted a serious live action series (again, without devolving into an orgy of violence and foul language). Of course, SNW is our last best hope for this series, but I was under the impression there already was another animated series targeted towards teen audiences, even if non-exclusively…

Last edited 23 days ago by Vulcan Soul

I think the other animated show has more of a pre-teen focus. I have watched Futurama but admittedly I don’t watch a great deal of animated comedy so I will just get the disclaimer out of the way and say that I’m no expert on this particular genre. The impression I get though is that these type of shows have to be very nuanced to appeal to as broad a spectrum as possible. On the surface you’ll have a show that can be quite simplistic and be followed by anybody but beneath that there will be different layers that might appeal to people on different levels.

To be honest, I could go either way with this and clearly that’s the case for a lot of older fans. I will watch it though and I suspect so to will the majority of those ‘alienated’ by the trailer. We’re the built in audience but LDS has clearly been developed to tap into the wider animated comedy genre and bring in new blood to the fanbase and that’s who they’re marketing to with trailer. I’m reasonably optimistic about the show, I definitely have concerns but I’m generally open to it. However, it may turn out that I can’t get past that simplistic surface layer or my preconceptions about what Star Trek should be but I get the impression that whether or not I like the show that it will be made with a lot of love and affection for the source material and that it will be proliferated with lots of nerdy and intellectual Easter eggs.

I can tell you won’t watch Lower Decks.

I agree. As an Australian this does look way too American.

Which is fine if you just want an American audience. But of course the corporate powers want money from everywhere.

So far they have only announced a release in the US and Canada. I guess it will be released in other parts of the world eventually but maybe CBS is finding it more difficult to sell this internationally than the other shows.

Maybe Lower Decks will end up on Netflix for other parts of the world. The US and Canada always get it first which is fine. As an American, I’m looking forward to it.

CBS has licensing agreements in each country.

Right on! And you’re saying this from a still very close “Five Eyes” point of view even! For everyone else, there is very little on offer, even from an alleged “diverse America” angle.

In a country where individuals are named “Fauci” or “Birx” , the best they could come up with is “Mariner” and “Boimler”. The same, overly broad American accent is heard through-out. And the ethnic representation of the animated crew seems to neither resemble any realistic projection of a United Earth crew 350 years in the future nor one of the intended contemporary US audience – but rather the fetish fever dream of the racist far left (13% white, 60% black, 0% Asian)
This is especially ridiculous at a time when the world is inevitably moving towards far less American influence, and not more. Stunningly out of touch with reality, the MSM would write! ;)

Last edited 21 days ago by Vulcan Soul

Well, I don’t like doing this sort of thing at all… It’s just not in my DNA to really care but since it was brought up looking at the 8 known LDKS characters the cast is 37.5% non-human. 37.5% black. 25% white. (Just based on appearance and who the voice actors are). And gender is split 50-50. Assuming the aliens are all of the male/female kind. We don’t know enough about the Caitians. No Asians of any kind. Middle Eastern, Central or East Asians. IMHO they could have done better on the diversity with the 5 human characters. They could have easily opted for 5 different ethnicities. But I guess they had their reasons to go they way they did….

(Just based on appearance and who the voice actors are).

Then the cast is rather 62.5 % white, 25% black and 12,5% Asian. Not that I find any of this important.

Last edited 19 days ago by odradek

Where are the Asians in the group? I don’t see any. And you are including the non-humans. Which, to me at least, do not count towards Earth ethnicities.

I strictly went with the voice talents. Cordero is Asian American, Lewis and Newsome are are black Amercans and all the rest are white Americans.

I went mainly by how they are drawn.

The non-fans may not count in the ethnicity of the characters, but I’m really surprised by the lack of diversity in the voice actors.

The live-action series had figured out that aliens shouldn’t all be played by white actors by at least TNG.

I’m actually quite surprised by this. Odarek has a point.

I don’t know what Odradek’s point was, though. My post was showing the ethnic make up of the characters. His was only using the cast. And I admitted that with 5 humans they could have gone more diverse if that was their goal. And yes, the crew of a star ship from a united Earth I would think would be a little more diverse than just black and white Americans. Even TOS had more diversity in their cast than that.

I don’t HATE TVH but what was with the heads? That scene made no sense. Kirk really was taking LDS.

You’ve never time traveled before? I get that head experience every time

‘Course for people in Utah this will read as “Star Trek: Latter Day Saints.”

(It’s how they abbreviate the Mormon church there.)

Those pesky Mormons in Utah!

The funniest part of the LDS joke from TVH (especially as it pertains to Gillian’s reaction) that no one ever mentions is what LDS actually stands for.

LDS is the Mormon church. Latter Day Saints and in Utah. Don’t want to make it an issue about religion.

Good for the show. Lower Decks is fantastic.