A Closer Look At What’s Coming In Season One Of ‘Star Trek: Lower Decks’

This week saw the release of the series premiere of Star Trek: Lower Decks. So far we have given it the TrekMovie recap and review treatment and analyzed all the easter eggs and references. The episode “Second Contact” was also the subject of both of our podcasts, where the teams from All Access Star Trek and Shuttle Pod discussed it at length.

But there is even more to cover, specifically with the preview of season one of Lower Decks which was shown at the end of the episode (and posted yesterday on the official site). There is a whole lot going on with the “This Season On Star Trek: Lower Decks” promo, full of quick cuts and events shown out of order. We have freeze framed and sorted things around into categories to unveil the secrets.  Obviously… SPOILERS.

Edosians, and Jellies, and Borg, Oh My!

Some familiar-looking aliens popped up during the promo. One appears to be an Edosian seen in silhouette, and we get a look at one of his three legs as well. Not much is known about this race, so if they are long-lived like Vulcans, it’s possible this Edosian could be Arex, from Star Trek: The Animated Series. The two shots of this scene also appear to show Boimler out of phase — and for some reason, with a dog.

There is also a brief shot of a jellyfish-like space vessel lifeform that could be the same species encountered by the USS Enterprise-D in the TNG series premiere “Encounter at Farpoint.”

There is a brief shot of some Borg, viewed through Rutherford’s cybernetic appliance.

A Klingon General with an eye patch

We also got our first good look at a Klingon. Boimler announces he is taking General K’Rin (a guess on the spelling) down to a planet named Talgana IV (again, guessing). This Klingon had a bolted-on eye patch just like General Chang from Star Trek VI. In the series premiere, Mariner mentioned how she got some of her shore leave contraband from a Klingon with a bolted-on eyepatch, so this is likely that same Klingon.

Big trouble in Little Qo’noS

There are a few shots from an away mission with Boimler (in dress uniform) and Mariner (some of which we saw in a previous trailer) showing them visiting a “little Qo’noS” enclave on a planet. It is possible this is related to taking the Klingon general down to Talgana IV. It looks like the mission goes awry at some point, and their shuttle leaves without them, dropping a box with Klingon symbols on it along the way.

We can see Boimler (still in dress uniform) and Mariner running through the streets, perhaps chasing the shuttle. Also, the locals on this planet don’t wear a lot of clothing.

There is an encounter in an alien bazaar where Klingon weapons are sold, and Boimler gets a bear hug from an angry alien holding what looks to be Klingon gagh.

…and more running

Rutherford and Tendi are also seeing sprinting through an alien market, wearing ponchos to blend in?

The horn of truth

There are some shots of our four lower decker ensigns in an alien courtroom, akin to the one where Kirk and McCoy were on trial in Star Trek VI.

However this tribunal isn’t made up of Klingons, but a new alien race, although they do appear to also like a nice bolted-on head appliance.

The ensigns are told they “must only speak the truth” through a special horn, which Rutherford uses to let the aliens know that he’s “happy to be here!”

Danger on the crystal planet

There are quite a few clips in the promo of what looks to be a standard second contact mission lead by Commander Ransom on a planet with large crystals.

But things don’t seem to go as planned as the aliens yell “Starfleet scum!” and starting throwing spears, injuring a Bolian crewmember. Maybe they didn’t like their gift.

Mariner shows off some of her fighting skills here as well.

Attack of the growth

We see a spreading infection that travels through the ship’s tractor beam.

This growth transforms parts of the ship and has explosive properties for Tendi and another crewperson.

Parts of the ship also get flooded, and Tendi goes for a swim.

Spacewalks are easy

We saw spacewalking in the first episode “Second Contact,” and the season one preview showed there is more to come. Rutherford explains to Tendi how space walks are easy, just “float and magnet, float and magnet,” which doesn’t really calm her nerves. Note all the floating debris outside the windows.

We also see them floating and magnet-ing through the debris field, which includes a large medical canister with the same markings as those seen in the closet where Boimler was doing his “captain’s log” in “Second Contact.”

There are a couple of shots of Mariner doing her own spacewalking among a number of starships. This may be a different episode, as we don’t see the same debris field.

Fighting the bugs

There are a few shots on the bridge at red alert when the crew is facing off against a scary bug-like alien.

Both Captain Freeman and Commander Ransom can be seen holding a star chart of the Federation/Romulan border and Neutral Zone.

In the middle of this crisis, we see that Boimler and Mariner are manning stations on the bridge, where Boimler doesn’t impress anyone by meekly suggesting “evasive maneuver 88.”

Captain Freeman: Sulu fan, moon destroyer

We also get another shot on the bridge at a different time. Here we see Shaxs upset he isn’t being allowed to shoot at another ship’s warp core; instead, Captain Freeman calls for “evasive pattern Sulu-alpha.”

The captain is also seen next to a display showing “Lunar Demolition” and talking about how “doing the impossible is what we do.”

Thug Ensign life

As the show’s lead, there are even more moments with Mariner, including one where she exits Freeman’s ready room throwing Vulcan salutes, gangsta-style.

We see Mariner run into some more trouble, including being taken for a ride atop a turbolift she was working on and being lowered into a vat of giant eels.

All Access free month promo

CBS All Access also announced a one-month free promotion. For a limited time, try 1 month FREE!


New episodes of Star Trek: Lower Decks premiere on Thursdays on CBS All Access in the U.S. and on CTV Sci-Fi Channel in Canada, where it’s also available to stream on Crave. It has not yet been announced where and when Lower Decks will be available outside of the USA and Canada.

Keep up with all the news and reviews from the new Star Trek Universe on TV at TrekMovie.com.

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

I’m looking forward to the next episode. I know the show can grow over time. The new aliens are really cool. The haters don’t have faith in Star Trek: Lower Decks. This show deserves a chance to boldly go anywhere.

I was reading other reviews of Lower Decks online and some people think the show is terrible. Trekmovie did a positive review and I appreciate it. Rotten Tomatoes and everything in between. Sometimes I avoid reviews on purpose.

I make my own judgement. Don’t need to be exposed to all the hate. Feel already stressed out by covid and other stuff in my life.

Last edited 1 month ago by Faze Ninja

Personally, I don’t hate it. Hate is the wrong word for it. It’s something else… It’s the inherent inability to deal with the very genre it tries to incorporate into the Star Trek universe.
My whole fandom is based on the “willing suspense of disbelief”. I can only fully appreciate a franchise when my mind manages to overwrite any skepticism while watching. Strangely, this concept doesn’t work when it comes to animated comedy. Decades ago some friends of mine tried to make me watch “Futurama”. I was so mad at them because I felt personally offended. This show felt like it was making fun of Trek and the genre and I didn’t want it to get ridiculed. And that was only a standalone parody, not official Trek which this here is actually supposed to be.

It’s not hatred that drives me, it’s helplessness, confusion and despair in the face of a genre that is an incoherent mess by definition… a genre I cannot decrypt emotionally…

Exactly. We’re asked to suspend disbelief and accept things like transporters, FTL travel, and so on, and we can do that because of the show’s realism.

Cartoonifying it, kiddifying it, and turning it into a sitcom is a bridge too far. (And I’d note that’s exactly what GALAXY QUEST did NOT do.) If they want to do that, let them create their own franchise.

Get a sense of humor Data.

I loved it, but the statement “The haters don’t have faith in Star Trek: Lower Decks. ” isn’t helping. Don’t label people “haters” because they feel differently about something than you do. “Haters” is a word dysfunctional 12-year-olds use. It shouldn’t be part of an adult’s vocabulary since it’s a childish word. If people dislike the show, they’re not haters. They’re not expressing hatred, and it has nothing to do with a lack of faith. The show isn’t going to connect with anyone. No show does. Using childish labels doesn’t help.

Last edited 1 month ago by His Name Is Rios

10000% THIS, RIOS! Thank you!

Yeah, but there are “haters”. That label doesn’t cover everyone who might have a genuine dislike for the 22 minutes of the show they just watched. But it does apply to people who call it “garbage” or “trash” or “what is wrong with modern Trek” – all of which are quotes I have read. The reviewers who trash it before having watched more than the original trailer, or who decry the series as a disaster after only a single episode. Those kinds of opinions don’t really add to the discussion – they are not nuanced or contemplative or provided with a spirit of openminded consideration. Those are the “haters” – those are the people who are blinded by their nostalgia, wedded to their personal “ownership” of what Trek is, or offended by different approaches to Trek. They cannot or will not consider a show on its own merits.

“…or offended by different approaches to Trek.”

I know, I know. And I do feel guilty that THIS TIME I cannot overlook that different approach. For almost three decades I’ve stood against those who condemned new Trek productions for being different or not exactly meeting one’s expectations. TNG S1, DS9, the NextGen movies, VOY, especially ENT and the KT movies and finally DSC and PIC… all of these productions were met with harsh criticism ever since Fred Freiberger supposedly “ruined” TOS S3. Many of those harshly criticised parts of Trek I truly cherish, especially TOS S3, TNG S1 and most of VOY, but also ENT and to some degree the KT. I had and still have my reservations about some aspects of DSC and PIC, but overall, I really like both shows.

But this time it’s different. It’s not just a different approach, but a new subgenre we’re dealing with. It’s a new medium, a completely different set of expectations that this “animated comedy” genre comes along with. And either you are into those over-the-top elements or you’re simply not. And so far, I cannot imagine how I could probably change that. Having ignored most animated comedy for decades, how can I just push the button and suddenly like something I have absolutely no attachment to, just because it is now branded Star Trek?

Yeah, I’m going to try, I’m going to give my best, but I cannot promise you that I will be successful this time…

Last edited 1 month ago by Garth Lorca

It’s not an exam. You don’t fail Star Trek school if you don’t like it. I hated 90% of Picard with the anger of a thousand exploding suns. I doubt I’ve seen ten episodes of Enterprise. I still like Star Trek, just not all of it. That’s fine. This is something new, you’re right, but it’s not like that’s all Star Trek is now. Watch it or don’t watch it. It’s not really that big of a deal.

Exactly!

People we don’t have to like everything. That’s really OK. There are people here who never liked TNG or (GASP) TOS itself. So what? Star Trek is a huge entity now and has been since the mid-90s once Voyager showed up and TNG started making their own films. The more content you have the more fans you will draw in, but also more criticism too.

And with this new era of Trek they are trying to diversify the shows as much as possible. They know not every fan is going to like every aspect of it. They literally know Prodigy is not going to attract the same fans who watch DIS or PIC because it’s not suppose to. Same deal with LDS. I think some fans just don’t seem to understand this but it’s not made for every fan in mind.

Of course as a fan, I hope people like more of it than less but if you personally like less no one is going to get on your case about it. I mean in the real world most people I know don’t even know I even watch these shows lol. Most of them has never even heard of DIS or LDS. And no one cares either.

Just enjoy what you enjoy. If you don’t enjoy it then move on. Pretty simple.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

“The more content you have the more fans you will draw in, but also more criticism too.”

So true. I remember the flaming wars in printed fanzines when DS9 and VOY didn’t meet everyone’s expectations. Many, many reasons were given for why those two shows aren’t Star Trek anymore. It became worse with ENT and the early internet. B&B bashing was all over the place.

Now DS9, VOY and ENT are given as shining examples of traditional Trek alongside TOS and TNG by those who shoot against DSC or PIC. Some people even want Berman and Braga back to replace Kurtzman.

The same is true for Star Wars. The PT was once destroyed by the haters. Now it is accepted as part of “true SW” by the ones who reject the Disney movies…

It’s crazy… But there is one thing I disagree on: I HAVE to like everything. At least I want to. And after a short period of transition I normally manage to embrace the new stuff. I truly hope it’ll happen for LD as well…

Last edited 1 month ago by Garth Lorca

“So true. I remember the flaming wars in printed fanzines when DS9 and VOY didn’t meet everyone’s expectations. Many, many reasons were given for why those two shows aren’t Star Trek anymore. It became worse with ENT and the early internet. B&B bashing was all over the place.

Now DS9, VOY and ENT are given as shining examples of traditional Trek alongside TOS and TNG by those who shoot against DSC or PIC. Some people even want Berman and Braga back to replace Kurtzman.

The same is true for Star Wars. The PT was once destroyed by the haters. Now it is accepted as part of “true SW” by the ones who reject the Disney movies…”

Oh yes I have noticed this trend as well, especially how both Star Trek and Star Wars have both paralleled each other in this regard. It really does speak to the power of nostalgia and/or the hatred of the newer products. I would not say VOY and ENT were nearly hated as the prequels though. Yes people didn’t like them but mostly just felt let down with their potential and not the utter rage the prequels got by the fans that Lucas basically destroyed his own franchise. They wanted them seen as non-canon. While I have heard that with ENT in some camps I don’t think anyone had the same feeling with VOY. DS9 was the black sheep for awhile, but that changed a lot by the time the show ended. But yes some people never gelled with it and questioned if it was even Star Trek. But I never really seen people think any Trek show or film should be considered not canon like the prequels.

But what a difference 20 years make! Now the prequels are considered ‘good’ and now people are begging for Lucas to take over the franchise again. They reject the Disney films (and many DO want those not to be considered canon) and the prequels are every bit as equal to the OT.

And yes same with Star Trek. I see so many fans today add the moniker Star Trek: 1966-2005. They see this as the ‘true’ era of Star Trek and the stuff from the 2009 film on is just stuff you should just look at as a parallel universe or something. I watch a lot of fan videos on Youtube and they clearly spend a lot of time making these tribute videos and stuff from TOS to ENT is nearly always included while leaving out the Kelvin movies and Discovery (Picard is still so new).

But I have a feeling in a decade that will change as well. The new stuff will get accepted in time by younger people who are growing up with it now. As demonized as the prequels were with old fans kids at the time seem to truly love them and they are all grown up today.

“It’s crazy… But there is one thing I disagree on: I HAVE to like everything. At least I want to. And after a short period of transition I normally manage to embrace the new stuff. I truly hope it’ll happen for LD as well…”

Well fine man, if you really feel that way then just try and be open minded about it. That’s all I can say for now, especially since its ONLY been one episode. We all know very well here that these shows can take years for people to like and appreciate as we’re talking about now. Fans know this and yet every time a new Trek show come out they act like the show is completely doomed from the start the minute it doesn’t meet their lofty expectations. Again, I never understand this knowing the history of this franchise and that yes most shows usually always improve in some way. So maybe you won’t like it this season. But maybe by the second (and hopefully) third something will change.

And you know I’m not an apologist. I been pretty critical of both Picard and Discovery and the same might be true here too. But I watch with the hope every show finds its groove in time or I wouldn’t bother personally if I hated them that much.

It will take time for some to get use to LDS but if the show just turns out to be a decent show most will get over their hang ups with it…I hope anyway.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

Well said Tiger2. Personally I know LDS (haha I like that easter egg) is not made for me. The same way Star Trek Prodigy will not be for me – and that is okay. I find it pretty obvious that the strategy is to make a plethora of shows, each one appealing to a different audience.
That said, thanks to reviews here and even some on YT have convinced me to watch at least a few more episodes if not the entire S1 of LDs leading up to what I am really waiting for, the season premier of Discovery.

Exactly! It’s OK not to like everything that gets made. I can understand it when Star Trek was a much smaller entity when TNG came out and we had much fewer options. It was either watch that new show or be stuck with TOS reruns for the rest of your life or something.

But now? I mean we have so much Star Trek, not only in the past but still the future. We’re no longer hurting for content. And more are still coming. So yes if the cartoons are not for you, probably Strange New Worlds will be. Maybe Section 31 might turn out to be decent. The point is you have options, tons of them today. I suspect every few years they will be announcing a new show to replace whatever old show goes into retirement. The streaming wars are real and as long as someone in some CBS office somewhere thinks Star Trek is what keeps AA viable then we will have new content for probably the next decade.

But I’m happy you are going to still give it a chance. For me, I don’t pretend my life is that busy at the moment. So I’m going to watch the entire season no matter what. But yeah if I’m not happy, I’m going to speak up about it.

But if this show is not for others, fine, they should just move on. Wait for the next one or just watch the 700 hours of reruns until another shows up that does suit them.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

I know people who absolutely detest this show as well as DSC and PIC simply because they exist. Whenever I try and dig a little deeper these people cannot give any other reason other than they hate the shows simply for existing. Though the nomenclature might be ‘immature’ to some, the fact is it is often apt. YouTubers like Midnight Edge and Nerdrotic are also similiar. They simply hate these shows for existing and use their platforms to spread hateful and abusive views.

Bravo! I just saw Lower Decks and I have to say this show will be a great hit for current and new audiences! Really enjoyed the STNG format, look and feel, it was great.

It is not my prefered style. It is actually weird for me to see so much STNG, but animated. Maybe my age (50+), not sure. But I really like the concept. The jokes. The cast. This show will be a big hit and will attract a new generation.

What I really like the most, is the freedom to do things they can’t in a real live show. Creative will have a blast adding all those ideas that cannot be possible, plus will be Canon!

For sure, this show will be here to stay for several seasons. Soon we will be able to see our beloved characters to interact with the new crew. That will be awesome. Specially for those who are very funny and were restrained on their previous “real” shows.

Would love to see them all, will be fantastic. Imagining Barclay/Troi, Data, Quark/Odo (R.I.P.), Garak/Bashir, Q, Harry/Tom, Belana, Worf. If they do time travel episodes, then we will have a chance to bring TOS Kirk, Sulu, Chekov. Enterprise and Discovery characters.

What I am actually looking forward already, is a real live movie! After 7 succesfull seasons, can you imagine this show live!? Will be Star Trek Galaxy Quest. Congratulations to Mike McMahan and Alex Kurtzman! :)

Last edited 1 month ago by Jay

I’m with you.

In fact, I’m glad that there was a two season order. I hope that ViacomCBS hangs tough, renews it for more seasons after the 2nd, and lets the audience find the show and build. And I’m wondering if the show should go even further in bending norms to become a 45 minute comedy-drama.

Frankly, I think that the negative critics have a fair amount of hubris to think that they know what the audiences want in the midst of Covid and post-COVID.

Most of the professional criticism is framed with arguments that it’s not enough this or that, not nasty enough skewering comedy, not enough science fiction etc. They are really stuck in rigid thinking. It’s as though they want to hold the content producers perpetually in what was from 9/11 to 2019.

This kind of negativity reminds me of the early reviews of Farscape, but it became one of the most influential science fiction television series of the past two decades.

Nothing innovative or good, that will respond to where the market is going vs where it was pre-COVID, is going to hit the old targets.

My guess is TG47 that this show will go on for many years. I imagine its waaaaay cheaper to do from what it cost to make Picard and Discovery and I’m still betting even if it doesn’t get as many views as those shows are getting it will still get way more than a lot of AA other shows easily…and still at a more lower price to boot.

Now obviously that’s all just assumptions and speculation but unless people just really hate this show and essentially boycott it I just don’t see how it can’t get enough views to get renewed for a few seasons? I mean this is All Access, not CBS. ;)

And of course people have the right to feel how they feel about it. We always knew it would be a little divisive just being animated and a comedy. How they feel is valid (but I hope they watch with an open mind and maybe will accept it in time). I don’t have the same issues at all but certainly understand why others do. And I just never been this person who cared what someone hated even if I loved it. I always loved Voyager knowing its not the most popular show in the fanbase and I will defend it to the very end. Same for the Kelvin movies which I really like (but not love ;)) but can understand why so many people have issues with them.

It’s only when people start the gatekeeping (ie, ‘this isn’t canon because I don’t like it’) when I roll my eyes. And its fine for them to feel that way personally as well, but yeah when you try to convince others that’s how it should be, then you shouldn’t be here, period. Those are just trolls I have no interest in talking to and don’t. People have said this with the Kelvin films, they are saying it with DIS and PIC and now LDS. It’s all canon people, all.of.it! Get over yourselves!

But it’s OK for not everyone to like every single element of this franchise….especially as it’s starting to grow exponentially again and they made it clear they want all the shows to feel different from each other. I mean there has always been enough Star Trek to go around for everyone to like what they like. And the beauty is if you think the Abrams/Kurtzman era of Star Trek sucks today you still have over 700 hours of movies and shows to enjoy from 1966-2005. We have the quantity very few other franchises have today, so we’re lucky no matter how you look at it.

But if you like the new stuff but still not everything in it, I think you’ll be OK. Somehow I think you can still love Discovery and hate Lower Decks (or vice versa) since those shows have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Seriously, it’s a great time to be a fan to even have these type of options today.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

This show will get 5 to 7 seasons.

Thanks. Go away now.

On the one hand, I thought my incapability of accepting animated comedy might be a general thing. But it isn’t. The Simpsons and Futurama have been around for quite a while and I haven’t managed to get into that sort of stuff for decades. I could live with The Simpsons because all they did was making fun of reality. It felt different with Futurama, because it made fun of SciFi… I don’t like it when they do that.

May it is just me taking my fandom and this franchise far too seriously but then, my supposed autism doesn’t allow me to react like a “normal” fan. I should be able to take stuff with a grain of salt, to keep an open mind etc… but I’m not.

But I’m glad some of you guys like it. I don’t want to ruin your experience. And if it helps to attarct a new generation of viewers – the guys who keep watching Rick & Morty – then so be it. I’ll sacrifice my pride for sake of the franchise, for the need of the many…
On the one hand, I thought my incapability of accepting animated comedy might be a general thing. But it isn’t. The Simpsons and Futurama have been around for quite a while and I haven’t managed to get into that sort of stuff for decades. I could live with The Simpsons because all they did was making fun of reality. It felt different with Futurama, because it made fun of SciFi… I don’t like it when they do that.

Maybe it is just me taking my fandom and this franchise far too seriously but then, my supposed autism doesn’t allow me to react like a “normal” fan. I should be able to take stuff with a grain of salt, to keep an open mind etc… but I’m not.

But I’m glad some of you guys like it. I don’t want to ruin your experience. And if it helps to attract a new generation of viewers – the guys who keep watching Rick & Morty – then so be it. I’ll sacrifice my pride for sake of the franchise, for the need of the many…

Last edited 1 month ago by Garth Lorca

Ugh. Not B’Elanna, please. And not Harry or Tom, either. Stick with the well-written and well-acted characters.

“Would love to see them all, will be fantastic. Imagining Barclay/Troi, Data, Quark/Odo (R.I.P.), Garak/Bashir, Q, Harry/Tom, Belana, Worf. If they do time travel episodes, then we will have a chance to bring TOS Kirk, Sulu, Chekov. Enterprise and Discovery characters.”

I hope you aren’t suggesting, by your inclusion of Odo in this list of legacy guest stars, that you wish someone else to voice the constable in the wake of Rene Auberjonois’ death, because that would NOT be a good thing.

Also, this is a post-Nemesis timeline, so Data would be dead.

Jay I agree with you. Lower Decks is the most exciting Star Trek property in a very long time.

“Imagining Barclay/Troi, Data, Quark/Odo (R.I.P.), Garak/Bashir, Q, Harry/Tom, Belana, Worf.”

All of those actors (yeah, even the Voyager ones) spend years crafting memorable characters — they quite literally forged a modern mythology. Their work was, in a word, craftsmanship. (Apologies; I can’t think of a gender-neutral equivalent.)

Why on earth would they sully that accomplishment by doing cameo voiceover work in an animated series with bug-eyed facsimiles of their beloved characters? Hurting for money?

Maybe because they like the show and would be thrilled to bring their character back to life? Just because you don’t like the show man, don’t pretend your opinion of it is a consensus with others.

And I highly doubt they are paid much to probably what amounted to a day of voice acting. They probably make more just showing up at a convention.

“They probably make more just showing up at a convention”

You just delivered one more good reason for them to do LD. To have new material to talk about at conventions.

Agreed with everything you said Jay! So far LOVING LDS. Yes that can change on a dime, I remember at least enjoying season one of Discovery before really disliking it but this is different. This feels like Star Trek to me in every way that matters. Yes it’s a comedy with silly jokes but all I can say is it worked for me in the opening episode. Maybe by the tenth episode I may be really down on it, but not because of it’s complete love and detail of how much it got this era of Star Trek right. MAYBE if Discovery did just a quarter of what LDS did when it premiered many people would’ve had a different stance on it….maybe.

“Would love to see them all, will be fantastic. Imagining Barclay/Troi, Data, Quark/Odo (R.I.P.), Garak/Bashir, Q, Harry/Tom, Belana, Worf. If they do time travel episodes, then we will have a chance to bring TOS Kirk, Sulu, Chekov. Enterprise and Discovery characters.”

Me too!

Would love to see every one of these characters and more.I loved the Barclay/Troi dynamic in Voyager so it would be fun to put them together again. And I’m just looking forward to seeing some/more DS9 and VOY characters show up on these shows. I want to know about Tom and B’elanna and how they are doing. Or if Bashir and Dax are still together and still living on DS9 (it’s only been two years since the Dominion war ended), what Quark is up to and yes Q!! Knowing how much of a fanboy McMahan seems to be especially for the TNG era I just don’t see how we don’t get a Q appearance at some point somewhere? And now there are no worries about any of the actors aging when they shouldn’t be like Q so it’s perfect. And yes I’m all for some time travel to meet up with TOS/ENT characters as well. Would love for Archer to show up and smile to see what Starfleet/the Federation became after him.

But let me be clear about all of this, its not necessary for any legacy characters (that’s what they are calling them now) to show up. Nor am I’m guessing most people is watching this show for. I remember some ex-member here used to get on my case for having the gall to want to see former characters appear because apparently this idea was a weird one since you never see fans begging to see familiar characters in Star Wars, DC, Harry Potter, Transformers, Marvel and on and on. Nope, just Star Trek apparently. ;)

So yes I’m willing to see as many as they can throw in but same time I would be fine if we saw no one either. I mean I remember watching TNG happily for YEARS and never once cared we saw anyone from TOS show up…but same time was always excited every time someone did like we got with Sarek, Scotty and definitely Spock! Same for DS9. As long as the show itself is good that’s all that matters. But fans are fans, we always want to see characters we loved and followed for years. They are not only part of fandom but they are what helped us appreciate it more, so it’s just human nature to want to see them again if possible.

And clearly McMahan feels the same thankfully and now has the power to do it. So I’m excited to see who shows up now that they confirmed we will be seeing some of them!

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

Are those holodeck ships like in STAR TREK: INSURRECTION?

It’s a pretty goods kids cartoon.

You can say that. It’s a pretty good show.

There’s been a bunch of arguments why it’s not really a kids cartoon, from the language and nudity to the fact that many of the in-jokes and references won’t do anything for kids unless they’ve seen the previous shows.

I still believe nudity is a concept that can only apply to flesh-and-blood people who actually exist. An actor or actress can be in the nudes and that state of existence in front of a camera is what makes it inacceptable or not, depending on one’s attitude towards the subject matter. A drawn, animated “character” can be shown naked but that doesn’t imply the same moral ambiguity as actual live-action nudity.

You have a point about nudity. Doesn’t matter if it’s love action or animated. Nudity is a step too far for moral reasons.

Sorry that I have to disagree again. The morality of it only applies to live action nudity because the potential transgression lies in the actress’ decision to sell her body to a TV or movie production. If a character is just animated, no such actual transgression occurs, thus it does not carry any morally relevant content. Dealing with sexuality or nakedness on a mere content level is morally indifferent to me. It’s part of life, part of the human condition, so it must be dealt with, just not with actual depictions of nudity that does IMO not belong to the public eye.

I don’t know how to express this. Think of murder. Murder is wrong but when depicted in a movie, it is most certainly always fake. It never actually happens, yet it can, it must be dealt with thematically.
Replace the term “murder” by “nudity” and you get my point. Nudity can be dealt with via animation or other trickery, but if it actually happens, it is wrong…

Last edited 1 month ago by Garth Lorca

The closest Trek has ever come to actual nudity was Tyler/L’Rell in DSC S1. But fortunately Mary was wearing some sort of body suit / Klingon body make-up. So it doesn’t really count in my book. The only truly freaking aspect about this “tease” was that it could have been a harbinger of further scene of that kind, this time actually involving bare human breasts. And that would have been morally devastating to Trek.

Of course I don’t expect most of you to agree to those quibbles. But it’s one of the reasons I dislike Game of Thrones and have a hard time respecting the actresses involved in those scenes. I simply don’t want anything like that to happen on Trek. But I fail to see the point in judging animated characters that don’t exist in flesh and blood. They cannot do wrong because they do not exist.

Do us a favor and stay away from French cinema; you’ll have an aneurysm.

Well, Star Trek isn’t “French cinema” and I’d really appreciate if it stays that way. And no, not even an affirmative line of Gene himself could alter that POV.

Dude. I’m nude right now. Morals have nothing to do with it.

I suppose you aren’t on TV right now :-)

But I guess this is something we cannot agree on. I live alone and even in my own home, I’m rarely naked, unless I’m under the shower or if I’ve forgotten fresh underpants in the cellar. But being nude on video, in public, is a completely different matter and that is all about morality…

I’m sorry but no, I’m having a hard time respecting anyone who is selling images of bare female breasts or primary genitals, not even for a respect magazine or TV show. I never want that on Trek. That’s the only red line they’d better not cross…ever!

If some people weren’t so obsessed with hiding them, it would be much more difficult for other people to make profit showing them. ;)

I’m no nudist myself, but really, what’s the obsession with hiding the breasts? If topless men are socially acceptable, why not topless women? Wasn’t that considered liberation back when Star Trek was created? To “let the lambs out”, as we say over here?

And well, it’s a strange testament of our times that sexual relationship between two men is more acceptable than simple female nudity.

@Dyonesse: Yes, it was an act of liberation around the time when Star Trek was created. Gene would have loved to have them lambs out on the screen. But that was before the internet came around and turned that act of liberation into an act of dehumanizing humiliation.

Because as soon as the first walls crumbled, culture wasn’t able to draw any line anymore. If anyone can decided for him- or herself what’s acceptable, then some of those liberated ladies end up in filthy situations I do not want to describe in any more detail.

So the only way for me to draw a line to that slippery slope was to downright reject all of it. I’m really sorry for that…

I fail to see how showing even real breasts, especially in a non sexual context, is so morally reprehensible. They make baby food. It’s victimless. If you were honest with yourself I think you would see this is purely and cultural stigma, and I imagine in this case a religious one too but that’s just speculation on my part.

Also if you have trouble respecting women who aren’t ashamed of their bodies then I advise you not to ever google the actress who plays Tendi.

Last edited 1 month ago by Zinc Saucier

“They make baby food. It’s victimless.”

I used to think that way too. GR himself would have appreciated nudity on Trek. Some 20 years ago I was actually hoping to see Troi or Jadzia, let alone Seven that way. But not anymore.

But what has happened? The internet has happened! It has turned a beautiful, victimless and most natural thing into a monsterous machinery of exploitation and humiliation. And since not even Google is able to draw a safe line between harmless, innocent nudity and hardcore stuff, the line can only be drawn right at the bikini lines.

Once upon a time it was possible to distinguish acceptable beauty from actual sex. Now many adult models would probably or potentially do both under certain circumstances and you cannot even know who would and who wouldn’t. That stuff has become so acceptable, there are amateur vids of celebrities like footballers floating around showing actual activities and that stuff can be accessed by every 12-year-old.

It’s not a cultural “stigma”, let alone a religiously motivated one on my part. I’m agnostic! It’s a counterreaction to what the internet has done to beauty and innocence…

Thanks for the warning about the Tendi actress…

Last edited 1 month ago by Garth Lorca

Okay, curiosity won over. I’ve googled Noel Wells. And yeah, that experience once again proved my entire point. I guess you’ve been referring to her movie “Mr. Roosevelt” which she wrote, directed and appeared topless in. Now 25 years ago, I would have considered that cool… a Star Trek actress, even if she’s just a voice actress, topless in her own movie.
But here we are… Google is not able to or unwilling to distinguish between the actual pictures of the actress and some randomly tagged “doppelgangers” featuring scenarios of a different nature. That’s the whole thing. Are (some of) these images really her, too? Has she adopted a pseudonym for appearing in some adult context? Or are these just tagged the wrong way to lure Noel’s fans into adult material?
The internet has ruined innocent nudity for me. The only way to get rid of all that filth is to activate Google’s safe search function. And then, all of it goes away. And that’s exactly how my mind now works with that unpleasant and annoying issue. In order to eliminate the filthy stuff, my mind’s safe search needs to eliminate nudity altogether… We’re living in a very sad and joyless age… At least I am…

Last edited 1 month ago by Garth Lorca

It’s aimed at pretty much everyone from what I can tell. I would have no problem letting my kid watch if he were as young as 8. Perhaps even 7. The comedy in that first episode was awfully soft.

Mediocre mild office humour. Very disappointed, but not surprised. 2/10 which is a real shame. Hurry up BNW and Disco.

SNW

Just realized that in fact it really should be : BRAVE NEW WORLDS, since we know, Star Trek is a rip-off of Forbidden Planets, which itself is a rip-off of The Tempest.

Lol yeah that’s the one. odradek has a good point though. It was early when I wrote that. That’s my excuse anyway.

I just can’t get into it. I like animated comedy, I love all things Star Trek, but this combination just feels… wrong.

But if others get something from it, good for them.

I wholeheartedly agree, minus the fact that I actually don’t like animated comedy to begin with. But the combination feels totally wrong. A spoof – be it live-action or animated – existing within the very universe it tries to make fun of, is a meta-level mind-bender that doesn’t agree with me on the ontological plane… it’s like a never-ending paradox…I wish I could break that fourth wall but I’m incapable of that…

Still trying to get used to the entire opening sequence. It defies expectations to say the least. I cannot decypher it emotionally. It plays around with TNG fonts, some Trek tropes, but I am not amused. For the first time in 27 years, since that summer of 93 that turned me into a Trekkie, I initially dislike a new opening sequence of an official Star Trek show.

But yeah, I so much want other to enjoy it. I envy those who can. I really want to like it myself as well. But in order to do so, I’d have to travel back in time and tell that past me to freakin’ watch Futurama in 1999 instead of feeling offended by it.

Bob (and others), I feel the same way – the pilot just didn’t grab me. I’ll watch a few more to give it an honest chance, but from what I’ve seen so far, I’m not enjoying it. It feels too much like a parody than a true part of 60+ years of continuity and storytelling. I like the genre well enough – I LOVED Futurama and watched Family Guy for years – but as an honest entry into the Star Trek universe, I just can’t buy into it.

That’s my opinion, though, and if anything, Star Trek has taught me to embrace infinite diversity, so I’ll simply wish the series well and be happy that fans are finding something there they didn’t find elsewhere. Personally, I enjoyed Picard and Discovery, so to each their own as far as modern Trek goes, I guess.

“Embracing diversity” does not mean a Barbara Cartland romance novel becomes Shakespeare.

I agree. Star Trek Lower Decks is a total waste of time, even in a pandemic. Parodies are supposed to at least be funny. The “jokes” just land with a thud. It’s not even camp. Throwing in Trek & SciFi references don’t improve much when you throw in so many per minute. This is the first official Trek property I can truly say I will not watch. I also feel it may cheapen the Star Trek brand which is an awful thing to happen to the few and very rare aspirational science fiction TV shows. It just trashes a great legacy for no good reason.

“I also feel it may cheapen the Star Trek brand which is an awful thing to happen…”

It does. Imagine Spaceballs being an actual Star Wars spin-off set in the same fictional world as the original. Imagine Scary Movie being an actual Scream sequel… It simply doesn’t make any freakin’ sense.

The only instance of such a tongue-in-cheek spoof existing within an otherwise serious franchise I can think of is Deadpool. And I’m not the biggest fan of those two incarnations either. I loved the seven X-Men movies and the first two Wolverine spin-offs. But Deadpool just broke them and was loved for doing so. It’s quite obviously that very same zeitgeist that now gives us Lower Decks…

Much of the “humor” on the show consists of the main characters yelling at the top of their lungs (I guess the art of deadpan delivery is lost).

The characters are cliched (yes, it was lawless ensigns after all; that wasn’t confined to the equally dumbed-down Nickelodeon series whose name I forget). The main character decides to engage in graft of farm equipment (it’s OK, because she knew the farmers; maybe she can stay at the Trump Hotel in her next visit to Earth?). She then tosses away the communicators that would rescue them from a sticky situation, because funny. And it all works out, because she’s the captain’s daughter, and the captain can get her staff to spy on family.

This characterization makes Wesley Crusher look like Hamlet.

Three years from now, the CEO of CBS is going to shake her head at a withering franchise and ask, “what the hell were they thinking?” The success of PICARD (due mostly to Chabon and Stewart) is not going to rescue Trek from a rising tide of mediocrity. They need to take the series back to its roots, pronto, and jettison the lawless/misfit ensigns, lawless teens, lame family “comedy”, Space Hitlers, prequels, Easter eggs and inside baseball, intelligence community stereotypes, and mutineer anti-heroes.

At this point, I’m starting to think the best thing to do would be to find a way to a couple of the more interesting DISCO characters (Saru, mostly) back to the 23rd century, put them on Pike’s bridge, bring Manny Coto back as showrunner, and focus on a single series done well.

Based on my viewing of one ep, and reviews of the first 4, I think the problem is that the show needs to either be more of a comedy (I mean a proper comedy, not just quips and chaos) or it needs to be more legit sci-fi. As it stands now, it’s not terribly funny and it’s not doing much in the Star Trek department, by which I mean a Star Trek approach to storytelling, not making a litany of references to past Trek episodes. And if McMahan wants to focus more on “human interest” stories of the lowers, then the show should be less bad-sitcom in its approach, and offer more than tiresome bickering. The thing is, there is a good concept here- seeing things from the lower crew’s perspective, and the notion of second contact- but I hope this will not be wasted with the tone and approach of the show.

No-one’s saying you have to like it, obviously. Grud knows I’ve spent two years on here moaning about what’s wrong with Discovery and Picard. But it feels a little unfair to throw this under the same scrutiny as the live-action shows in regards to canon and where it all fits, style-wise. It’s not designed or intended to withstand the same pressures and honestly, if you’re too busy applying that much effort into it, you’re kinda missing the point and denying yourself the simple pleasure of it. If the live-action shows had done their job properly, this would be a tasty appetizer while you wait for more main courses. A fun tangent away from all the po-faced drama and seriousness. It’s just meant to be light and breezy and while I agree that’s not necessarily what I would want from ALL my Star Trek all the time, it’s obvious strength is that it can just exist and do its own thing, without worrying about a bigger picture.

Glad to hear you appreciating this one blackmocco.

I especially welcome the point that some fun, and less serious content is needed, and that some flexibility is needed when we assess Trek offerings in new formats.

Trek is known for being earnest and aspirational, but it’s also known for its own quirky kind of fun.

I’m really glad that Kurtzman and CBS are giving this a serious chance. It’s not exactly my type of humour, but my spouse is laughing out loud. I do think that this show will successfully reach a different audience niche than Discovery and Picard, and hope it will be a large enough one to keep this show running many seasons.

I wouldn’t and can’t presume to know what audiences in the United States, Canada or elsewhere will be drawn to as COVID-19 plays out and afterwards. What I can fairly say is that there is absolutely no logic in the media experts apparent assumptions that what’s been seen as successful formats, trends and themes for the past two decades will have any relevance for the rest of the 2020s.

I really liked the first episode and the promo indicates that further episodes will also have a lot of adventures with other planets and aliens in it. Overall Lower Decks is by far my favorite of the recent new series.

The only thing I was surprised about was that I was not listed as an executive producer. Star Trek’s credits are becoming a laughable and never ending list of executive producers.

Regardless, if you liked it then great. As someone who doesn’t think Star Trek is a cartoon medium (that includes the original animated series), it’s not made for me.

I do think that Trek is being severely diluted by Kurtzman much like Star Wars is being made irrelevant by Disney. Throwing everything at a wall to see what sticks saves them from having to make smart decisions.

Star Trek and Star Wars have the same problem. Disney and CBS are abusing them to the point of irrelevancy

I really liked Lower Decks and I want to see it successful.

It’s not made for you. That’s okay, being a cartoon is not an issue for me. There should be new and inspiring stories.

Maybe Lower Decks is a smart decision.

I think I’ve figured out what is going on in recent Trek. I suppose we are observing another chapter of Trek chasing missed opportunities here.

Before DSC, CBS was provided with two options: MacFarlane’s proposal would have taken Trek another century into the future, starting anew with a traditional Trek concept of optimistic exploration. However, they opted for Bryan Fuller’s darker pre-TOS semi-reboot we got to know as DSC and quite obviously that wasn’t the huge hit they had expected.

MacFarlane went on turning his concept into The Orville, half Trek parody, half Trek-inspired inofficial spin-off and CBS realized they had put their money on the wrong stallion. But they had a plan to correct that misstep, looking for a way to have both: an animated parody by yet another popular animated comedy producer and a live-action return to the roots of Trek!

They reverse-engineered The Orville, splitting it into two properties: the animated parody Lower Decks and Strange New Worlds! They were teasing SNW throughout DSC S2 and eventually decided to give it a go after the possitive feedback Mount and Peck got from the fanbase.

But what to do with their prize stallion DSC? For that, they basically dug out another missed opportunity in the long history of unmade Trek projects: a Fall of the Federation concept that had once been an option in the early 80s and then again around the year 2000, a premise that had been turned into Andromeda by Majel Roddenberry in 2000 just moments before it could have become “series five” instead of ENT.

This isn’t the first time something like that has occured. Babylon 5 had original been a Trek space station proposal by JMS that had been turned down by Paramount just before they opted for GR’s Phase 2 retreat TNG. JMS turned B5 into a universe of its own when suddenly Paramount remembered that space station premise and created DS9.

Last edited 1 month ago by Garth Lorca

Did MacFarlane ever pitch a Trek show? As far as I know, The Orville was always going to be its own thing.

There were plenty of uncomfirmed rumors that MacFarlane had pitched Orville as an official Trek show to CBS, who declined as they already had Discovery – and something more serious – in mind. Seth then just proceeded with Orville, changing enough for it to be its own thing. There were also the bizarre rumors from a few months ago that had NBC/Universal (who Seth is now signed with) trying to buy the Trek franchise lock, stock and barrel from CBS for Seth and co to play with all the toys. As with all things internet, none of this can be confirmed so I would take most of this with a pinch of salt. CBS were always planning to launch their own streaming service, that much is certain, and Star Trek is one of their flagship properties so I find it hard to believe Seth pitching a show would have lit the light bulb over any CBS execs’ heads.

The Orville was never intended to be a legitimate Star Trek show. It is it’s own thing.

Babylon 5 is a show I’m familiar with but haven’t seen before.

CBS missed opportunities on Star Trek here. Lower Decks is a new chapter of something new.

MacFarlane is a loon.

I really like the simplified version of the Klingon uniform. Less is more! Soooo much better than the Discovery Klingons.

Same! I’m really happy a lot of the new Star Trek actually looks like Star Trek again. ;)

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

Its just a pity so far it looks they feel we can’t have an actual, serious LIVE ACTION SHOW with this! Like Classic Trek is now only good enough for animated comedy. That would be most unfortunate. Here’s hoping for SNW!

Does anybody know why Boimler has purple hair? Is it just a fun design decision?

Last edited 1 month ago by Just Another Salt Vampire

Yeah, I’d wager artistic license.

Last edited 1 month ago by Ambassador Sybok

Same reason Marge Simpson has blue hair. Cartoon characters are allowed to have whatever hair color they want.

Its not just cartoon characters either (okay, animated characters :) St. Michael of Burn regularly sports a Marge Simpson haircut after all, minus the color :)

I love this show. This is what TNG should have been.

In the shot where Mariner, Ransom, and the Bolian are all hunkered against the crystal, the Bolian’s wound is tied with a red strip of cloth. Ransom’s shirt is fine, but Mariner’s right sleeve is not rolled up now. Her left is, and the right was rolled up in the fight scene… I’m guessing the fight scene happens as soon as the shit hits the fan, and she tears off her sleeve after they regroup to patch the Bolian’s wound.

As those of you who have read my previous posts may know, I’ve had my troubles deciding whether an “animated spoof” within the Trek universe can actually exist logically, whether this is actual Star Trek and whether numerous elements in current shows like drugs, alcohol, nudity, swearing, gore etc. can be part of legit Trek.

I think I have found a “formula” that helps me to sort out that question. For me, Trek is made of two main ingredients, two distinct sets of rules:

First, there are the “Prime Directive(s)” of Trek, the purist view of what could be described as “Gene’s Vision”… no conflict among the crew, no drugs, smoking, alcohol, no swearing, no unnecessary explosions, an utopian, optimistic view of betterment for the human condition…and yes, no freakin’ zippers!

Second, there also is IDIC, infinite diversity in infinite combinations, which is also part of original Trek. That inclusionist view enabled TOS to incorporate elements from countless genres such as westerns, martial arts, war movies, mobster flicks, scary movies or even fairy tales, though observed through a playful, family-friendly filter. From those humble beginnings, Trek has always changed and adapted, incorporating trending fashions that had already prepared many changes that are now fully implemented…

IDIC vs the Prime Directive… The Needs of the Many vs the Needs of the Few… General audiences vs the hardcore fanbase, inclusionism vs purism. It always comes down to these two poles of what Star Trek can be, should be and always shall be.

But those two poles are inseperable. They are the two sides of the same coin. Some fans may more lean towards the IDIC stance, others may be focused on the purist view of Trek but after all, both extremes have been there from day one, often intwined with one another.

Arguably the purest form of Gene’s utopianism was seen in TNG S1. Ironically, that season also gave us the blatant racism of Code of Honor, the less-is-more sexism of Justice and the gore of Conspiracy, not to forget the rare instance of death in the family with Tasha’s early departure. On the other hand, the presumably bleakest Trek period of DS9 gave us Far Beyond the Stars, The Visitor and Trials and Tribble-iations…

So now, the only thing I need to do is coming to terms with the fact that Lower Decks is yet another implementation of that IDIC dictum just like TOS adapted westerns, gangster flicks and flower power…

On the other hand of course, there is a difference between dealing with something and turning into something. TOS dealt with gangsters, cowboys or monsters whereas the LD crew actually ARE cartoon characters behaving like cartoon characters. That’s a difference I haven’t fully grasped yet.

Last edited 1 month ago by Garth Lorca

Seems to me that you are at some sort of “Kant Crisis” because you can’t distinguish that TNG and LDS are in the same universe but not on the same plane of reality. I think if you understand that a painting is something different than a foto and a movie is something different than a play, you are on a good way. All those things have their own forms of expression but also their own specific truth.

Last edited 1 month ago by odradek

That’s only part of the issue. The cartoon vs live-action aspect is there but it is rather the “spoof within an actual fiction” thing that keeps me busy. That’s why I never got into Deadpool either. This “breaking the fourth wall” thing gives me the creeps. And Deadpool is live-action just like the rest of the X-Men movies.

Incorporating the rules, styles and expecations of a very weird and special genre such as animated comedy into a pre-esablished fictional world is a difficult chore to say the least, especially since I’ve never really watched any of that stuff like Futurama or Rick & Morty.

But yeah, I think I’ll manage :-)

So that king gave three rings to his three sons. One of them was live-action TV, one of them was movies and one of them animated comedy. The father loved all three of them equally and each of them received a key to the fandom… That’s Kant, isn’t it? Kant Noonian Singh I suppose… a genetically superior philosopher… :-)

No, that was Lessing. But I like what you did there. Lessing took that story from Boccaccio and gave it his own spin, and so did you. Kant is more the guy who formulated: “Watch only those Star Trek shows in crew you would like to serve and which that captain who represents exactly the values you would stand for.”

Thanks. I’m so sorry. I should have known the difference…