Mike McMahan On Exploring Ensigns And Unexpected Cameos In ‘Star Trek: Lower Decks’ Season 2… And 3

With last week’s release of Star Trek: Lower Decks on Blu-ray, creator and showrunner Mike McMahan has been doing the rounds. In addition to his interview with TrekMovie, Mike spoke to a few other outlets and we have curated some of the more interesting tidbits.

Season two will pick right up with season one’s cliffhangers

A lot happened leading up to the season one finale of Lower Decks, and Mike McMahan tells IGN season two will pick right up with the aftermath:

“These last three episodes created this crescendo of, ‘Look, this is what the show is. Let’s go. And we keep that up. That’s what the beginning of Season 2 feels like. [It] is talking about those things. How does Mariner feel about Boimler taking off? How is Boimler doing on the Titan? What stories are we telling there? So, [we’re] still doing standalone, still episodes that feel episodic, but the characters don’t forget. We haven’t forgotten what we’ve said [in] Season 1.”

And speaking to Screenrant offered a few more details on how season two will deal with the issues left over from season one:

We’ve got Rutherford’s memory issues, we’ve got Mariner and her mom working together, we’ve got the Pakleds being a real threat out in the world, we’ve got Tendi worried about her friends not remembering her from the first season and what does that mean for their friendship. And we’ve got Boimler on the Titan! That’s not the Cerritos. The Titan is a whole different beast and what does that mean for our Boimy Boims? You know, he’s not with Mariner or Rutherford or Tendi and what is that new group like over there? How is he experiencing it and how are our other Lower Deckers experiencing him not being there?All that stuff is how we wrote season 2. It’s very funny.

Exploring the ensigns in season two… and three

In April along with the release of the season two trailer, Paramount+ announced Lower Decks had been picked up for a third season. Speaking to Decider McMahan talked about how the team is exploring his core four ensign characters in upcoming seasons:

We’ve written season two… Where we go with all of our characters is really interesting to me it, it really leans into “Who am I in Starfleet? I’m an ensign. But where am I going to end up?” All four of our leads, we’re writing season three right now and exploring who they are and how they’re becoming the people they are, is really the most exciting thing about this show because it’s one of the few things we haven’t seen in Star Trek. Starting from one of the lower levels. I know, ensign isn’t the lowest. It’s not the last one… But truly focusing on four different people with four different paths… I know where I want them to end up. Let’s watch together how they get there. It’s really fun to watch happen.

Unexpected character cameos coming… still struggling with Wesley

Season one of Lower Decks featured a few familiar characters popping in, including Wil Riker, Deanna Troi, and Q. And speaking to Screenrant, McMahan promises there are “some amazing legacy cameos” coming up, but he also indicated there could be deeper cuts from Trek canon:

I find that if I utilize people that you don’t expect to have on the show it ends up feeling more earned, more fun, more surprising. So there are some legacy guest roles in the second season and in the third season as well but I think it’s people you’re not going to expect when you get them.

When the show premiered last year McMahan talked about how one character he wanted to bring into the show was Wesley Crusher, but he struggled with the issue that the character was “off with The Traveler.” In his latest TrekMovie interview, Wil Wheaton said he would do the show “in a heartbeat” and had a few “headcanon” ideas himself. But it seems McMahan still hasn’t sorted out a way to make it work, telling Cinemablend:

I just love Wil Wheaton and I love that character and I would love to find a way to not step on what exists with that character. That’s one of the things where I just feel like I need more of a confidence to educate myself more about what the appropriate way to tackle that would be. For the most part we treat TNG, Deep Space Nine, all the series, Voyager. It’s more fun to treat them as the rule books of the stuff that we are honoring and not changing. As we grow [Star Trek: Lower Decks], we have to be even more careful than ever before to not change stuff or retcon stuff. You know like, Beverly Crusher falling in love with a candle, that’s good for us! That’s helpful for us. You don’t want to change that stuff, you know? So yeah I think just figuring out Wes of it all is still the thing I just need to wrap my head around and figure out how to do right.

Star Trek: O’Brien? Why not?

One of the more memorable gags in the episode “Temporal Edict” was a glimpse at a far future where Chief Miles O’Brien was being revered as “perhaps the most important in Starfleet history.” McMahan offered some insights into this moment with IGN:

“I think [in that scene] we’re who-knows-how-far-off and we tried to make a point of when you see that, you think they’re going to say Picard,” laughs McMahan. “But then when you see O’Brien, your first thought is, ‘Ha, not Picard.’ Your second thought is, ‘I could have seen this because O’Brien rules… There’s a bunch of easy ways to make O’Brien the hallowed figure of all the Starfleet,” he continues. “History decides who you remember, not who history wants you to remember. And I think that we’re far enough in the future that Star Trek is flexible, there’s timelines, there’s all sorts of stuff. The headline for me is you could give any Star Trek character their own show and you could make a great show out of it.”

Chief O’Brien statue in “Temporal Edict”

Lower Decks home release out now

The first season of Star Trek: Lower Decks is now available on home media, check out TrekMovie’s review for more details. You can pick up the Blu-ray edition at Amazon for $24.96. The limited-edition Steelbook Blu-ray set can be ordered at Amazon for $29.99. And the DVD edition can be ordered at Amazon for $16.66.


Find more news and analysis on Star Trek: Lower Decks.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The Pakleds were a inspired choice for villains – they suit the show quite well. And they seem almost as threatening as the Borg in that episode they were in at least to me anyway.

Yeah, but what does that tell us about this show? If the Pakled are actually a fitting villain for a Trek show, then this very show must be a joke, which it deliberately is, which I find significantly bewildering… because both Galaxy Quest and The Orville have managed to pay homage to Trek without turning it into a joke, and that from an outside POV! Then comes LDS and basically reverses that effect: instead of laughing with Trek, we are making fun of it on a very low level, starting with the issue of promotion and career plans, covering first contacts, prime directive and other virtues and ending with totally over-the-top animated characters that are just annoying…

I guess you just have to be a fan of shows like The Simpsons or Family Guy to even get that vibe behind such a show. But the thing is: the Simpsons aren’t canonically entwined with any serious live-action franchise… LDS is, significantly… and this just feels wrong…

Yeah, I’ve found a way to deal with it, reverse-engineering those characters using a Riker-Troi comparison with their live-action counterparts… but I still don’t really like it…

Honest question: Do you have a problem that Hogan’s Heroes is somewhat entwined with Judgement at Nuremberg, because it had the same actor in a similar role in it, although one is a farce and the other serious drama? And more so, that the actor”s own family is entwined with that same real history, but from the exact opposite side?

Ummmmm… what the heck? Hogan’s Heroes? What does THAT have to do with any of this?

It is a personal question, I am really interested in. If I’m allowed to ask that here!?! Garth said a lot of captivating things about that topic.

Hogan’s Heroes is entirely irrelevant to this discussion since the two situations are not at all similar. Plus, your question is nonsensical.

Odradek, this is an intriguing question. While I have actually never seen an episode of Hogan’s Heroes, I’ve just read enough about it to reply. Obviously it’s a comedy series set in WWII. And there is a Jewish German actor named Werner Klemperer who appeared in both Hogan’s Heroes and Judgment in Nuremberg…

First of all, WWII is actual history. There is no fictional universe that needs to uphold any sort of credibility. You may have comedy movies or series such as Hogan’s Heroes dealing with it as well as serious adult drama such as Band of Brothers. The common ground of these shows is factual history coming to life in a fictional treatment. There is no trademark, no franchise, no brand to be protected and kept “clean”..

An actor playing a similar role in any of such movies is also widely irrelevant. If Leonard Nimoy had played Dr Lazarus in Galaxy Quest, it still wouldn’t have been actual Spock, only a somewhat similar character. So there is a absolutely no canonical issue in question here.

But that’s entirely different with LDS. Riker is Riker, Troi is Troi, only seen through the strange layer of animated comedy tropes. It is officially branded Star Trek (TM), not some out-of-universe parody or spoof.

So while I regard your question fascinating, I do not see how these two instances are even remotely related to each other. It’s a bit like saying… Okay, James Bond Skyfall takes place in the same year as The Simpsons Season 24…and also takes place on Earth… so they must be set in the same universe. No, they aren’t… They are two seperate entities, two media franchises clearly distinguishable… But LDS is part of one and the same media franchise that is Star Trek… There are not seperate at all…

Thank you for answering my question and even doing research to be able to do so. Your viewpoint gave me some inspirationen to think further about some things concerning different layers of fictionality, but I”m not quite finished to really give an adequate response right now.

While I certainly get your gripe and have no argument, I have personally always viewed Trek as maleable: this is why the retconning of visuals, retconning of canon, never really gets to me.

That what we watch is an interpretation of events in this fictional universe. As if the Trek universe is a real universe, and writers and actors are recreating historical events. They may not look and act as they actually did, they may get things wrong from time to time, or they may choose to dramatise them, or make them more appealing for film, so to speak.

In this way, I view LDS as actual canonical stories, but told in a lighthearted manner. So if Riker were to ever reference his adventures from the show in the next season of Picard, he would not mention the sillier aspects, because maybe it didn’t actually happen exactly in that way. We saw a comedic version.

I like Lower Decks and I’m not a fan of Family Guy and haven’t really noticed the Simpsons in over a decade. The Orville is tonally confusing but has its moments. To each their own.

Lower Decks is like Marvel Comics where in one corner you have Daredevil being ultra serious and in the other corner you have Squirrel Girl having a sense of humor. It’s all the same universe, but there’s room for different styles and tones. I like that the Star Trek universe has become big enough that there’s room for everyone and we can all take or leave it now.

I like your Marvel comparison because it somewhat illustrates my issues with LDS and also the more adult tone of early DSC and PIC. While I’ve never been a huge fan of CBMs, I somewhat liked the X-Men series and the MCU as well as some of the older DC movies.

What I like about the MCU or the traditional X-Verse outings is that they share a sort of similar style, tone, age certificate and target audience. The very point of creating a franchise is to build that shared universe on a common ground that gives it a very specific identity.

Then came movies such as Logan, Deadpool or Birds of Prey / Suicide Squad 2, set in the same universes as some of the more conventional CBMs. And THAT was a major turn-off for me as I really loathe the co-existence of R-rated stuff in a formerly PG franchise! I’ve largely given up on everything CBM due to the chaos created by those shake-ups…

There is absolutely nothing wrong with R-Rated stuff or TV-MA material as long as it stays in seperate worlds. Alien, Terminator, The Expanse, Watchmen… I like those franchises and I also don’t want them to be watered down by PG-13 outings. On the other hand, I can’t stand R-Rated stuff in family-friendly franchises… It’s confusing to say the least…

My autistic mind needs order. I need to put those entities, those franchises on different mental shelves, in different mental drawers… anything else doesn’t really compute within my mindset. I’m sorry…

Reality has R rated stuff along side PG stuff. It makes sense that move universes would be the same.

He’s talking about tone. There’s no such thing as PG sex and violence in real life, there is in tv and film.

I guess if you grow up in some third-world countries or on street-level in some big cities, your reality is full of R.Rated stuff from your early childhood. But as I grew up in an overprotected, super-burgeoise environment with no contact to sex, violence, drugs etc… and since I’d only been able to watch PG stuff until I was 17 or 18, I wasn’t prepared at all. Due to my condition I haven’t been able to adapt to that new level of reality in more than 20 years since then…

All I can do is mentally shelve it, label it and systemize it. Mixing and mingling R-Rated and PG-rated content doesn’t really help.

Lower Decks falls more in line with “has fun WITH Trek” not “makes fun OF Trek”

Well, then I think I simply don’t share your sort of humor. That’s easily explained. Being a high functional autist, I only have a very specific humor based on my savant that is linguistics. My sense of humor is entirely based on puns. It’s the ONLY sort of humor I get and there hasn’t been a single day that I haven’t been throwing around puns that may appear very flat to other people…but I love them.

Other sorts of humor I simply don’t get… slapstick, morbid black humor, sex jokes or crude overacting. I simply cannot decipher those. As ASD can cause major problems correctly interpreting a character’s motivation even in a serious outing, any sort of overacting LDS style or black humor is completely beyond my limitations. As soon as blood or sexuality is involved, I’m also plagued by a superpowerful bad conscience that flays me like a puppet.

This is why – even at the age of 41 – I wouldn’t be able to make any sense of something like a zombie comedy. Just like the pilot for LDS…
My primary reaction would be that I have to be shocked but then they also expect me to laugh. Even if I could laugh about any of that, my Freudian Uber-Ich would expect me to feel bad about that. I cannot control those emotional feedback loops. They are just there… confusing the hell out of me. ..

That may be the reason I feel so easily offended by most sorts of humor, especially violent and sexual humor.

Then–and I mean no disrespect here–perhaps you might consider that the problem isn’t on Lower Decks’ end, but yours. You have just admitted you lack the ability to comprehend humor. So while it’s no fault of yours, it’s still a problem on YOUR end, not Star Trek’s.

I have two nieces with autism. They’re wonderful people and I love them dearly. They also have no understanding of most forms of humor, and they tend to take things way too seriously as a result. I accept that about them because I understand the root cause, but in the end, it still comes down to the problem being on their end, not on the end of those with whom they get upset.

“They also have no understanding of most forms of humor, and they tend to take things way too seriously as a result.”

Thank you for your confirmation. Hearing about other similar cases helps me further exploring my issues. I’ve only recently discovered the cause behind my issues and I’m still learning to deal with it.

Of course the problem is on my end. But isn’t that what giving an opinion is all about? I’m totally not saying that other people shouldn’t like LDS. I’m just saying that I don’t like it and I’m trying to give reasons and explanations for that. Which I take very very serious as I have always attempted to like and defend Star Trek against all criticism.

Because, as you’ve said, I take things way too serious :-)

This is why I also could make any sense of Shatner’s “It’s just a television show. Get a life!” statement. As from my limited POV, life itself is like an elaborated program and other people are probably just characters to me, the distiction between life and fiction is a pointless one that I cannot share. It’s an interesting notion but it’s empty for me.

Yeah, I never was much of a fan of Galaxy Quest. I got teased enough a young boy and teen being a Trek fan. I was concerned about same with LDS. I’ve found I quite like it. In a way, it reminds me of the TV/movie business. There’s above the line and below the line. Executive Producers, Directors and Lead Actors are above the line. Below the line, 1st AD, Grip and electric, etc, do the heavy lifting that makes the above the line people shine. They rarely get recognized for it. I just enjoy LDS for what it is. I don’t expect it to be mind- blowing Trek.

Being teased, being different, standing apart and being my very own species has always been a firm part of my life. For decades I hadn’t even known the true reason for being so different. But even as I know now, I am still proud of being different, now even more than ever before.

That being said, I don’t think Galaxy Quest does any of that. I am VERY easily offended by spoofs. I hated Spaceballs a lot. Galaxy Quest never gave me that feeling of being poked fun at. But LDS does exactly evoke that feeling, this time from within our very own franchise. That feels a tad like being stabbed in the back…

See, I felt the way you do, with LDS, about Galaxy Quest. It was subtle, the parents ignoring the main character. The main cast doing mall openings and such. The actors, taking the piss out of rabid fans. I didn’t feel stabbed in the back, like yourself, just didn’t like being the butt of the joke. Yeah, Spaceballs just sucked. I’m glad you’re proud of your uniqueness. While I’m not an autist like yourself, I was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in my mid-forties. I knew something was “off” about me, growing up. It was a relief, to finally find out what it was. It was after seeking help for what I discovered was PTSD, did I find out the bipolar diagnosis. I take medication to keep me steady and I’m in a CBT regimen for the PTSD. I used to refer to myself as a PTSD sufferer, now, I’m a PTSD survivor. I wear it like a proud battle scar, that’s made me stronger. I try to be an advocate for those who struggle with mental health. I encourage people to seek treatment. I try to be a bridge between someone struggling and their family. Keep posting your thoughts and opinions. It’s shining a light into autism, something I know little about. I’ll watch LDS next season and try to see it with a different filter.

Again, then, I urge you to recognize that this is due to your autism, not due to anything on Star Trek’s end. Your view of the show (and of Spaceballs and other spoofs) is being heavily skewed by your being autistic. I say that not to mock you or put you down, as autism is nothing to be ashamed of or mocked. But the simple truth, as you admitted in another comment, is that your autism prevents you from understanding humor. The problem, then, is your non-grasping of comedy, not Star Trek’s use of comedy,

Also, you seem to recognize that you are too easily offended by things you shouldn’t be offended at. So that’s a start. Now expand on that. If you know you have autism and you know that you are too easily offended by non-offensive things, then you should recognize that the problem here isn’t Lower Decks’ approach to humor–it’s your innate inability to understand it. The show is doing the humor right, but your neurodevelopmental disorder is preventing you from appreciating it.

Humour is subjective, you don’t have to be autistic to not find lower decks funny. As much as I recognise that there’s a lot of love gone into the show and it obviously resonates with a significant proportion of long standing fans I still find myself agreeing with some of Garth Lorca’s observations.

Agreed. Sondegard’s badgering here is silly, condescending, disrespectful and just plain wrong.

My view on movies and shows is of course influenced by what I am and who I am and I doubt it is any different with anyone else. Different people like or dislike different things. That much I do get about humans :-)

In my case, my nature keeps me from fully enjoying very violent and sexual entertainment as well as some intrusive comedy. Older TV shows and P-13 movies didn’t cause these issues of course, so I only realized that throughout the last decade. I’m fine with it.

But I don’t see how my POV or condition disqualifies me from having an opinion on things. And frankly speaking, I don’t accept that. It is my prerogative not liking stuff like Deadpool or LDS, no matter what causes that dislike.

Because honestly, there is no true opinion. You make it sound like LDS can be objectively considered a well-balanced show. Others completely trash it. I’m just taking part in that interaction from my POV. So where is the problem?

This is a very strange, condescending, completely faulty argument: “if you don’t like something, it’s your fault” or “If you weren’t on the spectrum, you would like it” or “you don’t get Trek humor because you’re on the spectrum.”


Humor is subjective. There are plenty of other folks who aren’t crazy about some or all of Trek’s varied attempts at humour. Trek humor has been pretty hit and miss.

Let people have their opinions. Good grief.

Actually I found Galaxy Quest and LDX to be similar in that both weren’t funny in the slightest. No, GQ being not funny wasn’t because it had fun with fandom. It’s because all but one of the jokes just weren’t funny. Apart from that one gag, which did produce a very large laugh (one more than LDX did for the record) I found that film amazingly dull.

That’s the thing… I don’t see them as making fun of Trek at all. In fact, it feels like they go very far out of the way to try and not only NOT make fun but they aren’t even poking fun at it! They go so far out of the way that it seems like they are afraid to offend the fans. That is not a good way to do comedy. Comedy writers cannot worry about offending anyone. Just write what’s funny and if someone is offended by a joke that’s on them. Not the writer.

Fully agreed, they are the perfect villains for this day and age. Especially if you consider what Bonhoeffer said about stupidity

“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed – in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.”

So with you in this.

Bonhoeffer. Thank you for that odarek.

The Pakleds are terrifying and a true antithesis to Starfleet.

Thanks for educating me odradek – never heard of Bonhoeffer before.

@Trek in a Cafe, TG47 and Dvorak

Thank you for taking interest, especially in the year we commemorate the 100th birthday of Sophie Scholl, a woman, who also is not known enough outside the German speaking countries.

Oh how true that is…

Genuinely interested in seeing storylines where these new characters grow and develop.

Not interested in the season 1 thing where there was a reference or easter egg to past Trek literally every 12 seconds.

Since it didn’t happen every 12 seconds, it was not “literally every 12 seconds.” That is literally not what “literally” means.

You’re right. It virtually happened every 10 seconds… Or maybe it was practically every 5 seconds.. I think it happened considerably frequent,,,
Which only makes sense if an alien entity like Q decided to enlighten those characters with some insight into their nature as fictional characters, adding some strange layer of meta-awareness upon the show.
I was expecting something like that to be revealed at some point… some fourth-wall-breaking revelation that would actually make sense and literally explain the virtual obliteration of on-screen coherence….

@Garth Brilliant.

One line in an episode relating to the “Easter egg” references to past ‘Treks still has me laughing whenever I think about it: Boimler complaining that some Starfleet guy’s looks (who is a friend of Boimler’s girlfriend on another ship) compare to “….a Kirk Sundae with Trip Tucker sprinkles.” That left me laughing for days, and STILL makes me laugh every time I think about it. Those are welcome bits I love to be surprised by.

Something like that makes me wonder for days if there was even the slightes possibility for any late 24th century character to come up with such a comparison. Kirk may be famous enough to count as a historical figure, but Trip? He was a minor character on a 250-year-old ship. Well, they are erecting Miles O’Brien statues now, so who knows…

Seriously, no question that those characters are beloved fan favourites. But are they really household names in-universe centuries later? Just wondering…

And that’s my entire problem: the writers of that show actually reagd such lines and ideas as paying tribute to Trek characters. But what they’re actually doing from my POV is poking fun at them and the entire idea of keeping memories.

“Seriously, no question that those characters are beloved fan favourites. But are they really household names in-universe centuries later? Just wondering…”

That I can explain: It is because of the dubbing. If we hear Klingons speak on the home world, we don’t think they speak English, we assume it is translated for us. At least I do, because almost everything I watch is dubbed anyway. And the English we hear in Starfleet can’t be the real English they would speak in the 24th c., because it would be unrecognizible for all the Klingon, Vulcan etc. loanwords and evolved syntax. And in all the dubbing I know they always change persons who are not known in the cultural context with those who are better known.

Trip Tucker was the Chief Engineer on the first Earth Warp 5 starship for several years before his untimely death – hardly a “minor character” or a footnote in history.

As for O’Brien…you know he did spend 7 years on DS9…and who knows what he did post-DS9.

If they put as much effort into writing funny gags as they did into “easter eggs” the 2nd season will be considerably better.

Seven seasons and a movie!! I’m just throwing that out there now! :)

I’m soooo looking forward to season 2! And I can’t wait to rewatch season 1 when I get there on my rewatch. But it all sounds great. I can’t believe they are already working on season 3 and season 2 hasn’t even aired yet. But that probably means season 3 will be ready to go by next summer as well.

And since he said we are going to get more legacy characters (duh) but said some we also may not expect, please, please, please let this be some DS9 characters as well!! I love to see what Bashir, Dax, Kira, Quark or anyone is up to. And since we know O’Brien is the most important Starfleet officer in the future, well maybe he’ll show up again so they can start planting those seeds. ;)

And I also think what really makes this show work for me is that it IS episodic. No overwrought over the top convoluted story lines like we got in PIC or DIS, just basic adventure of the week stories like the old days and really appreciate that. So happy that sounds like what all the other seasons will continue to do as well.

But I don’t get the whole Wesley hang up?? We saw the guy in a Starfleet uniform in Nemesis at Riker and Troi’s wedding. And in a deleted scene from the movie he was going to be serving on the Titan with Riker, so what’s the issue? He should just be on the ship with them. And even if he was still off somewhere with the traveler, what stops him from just showing up again? I mean he’s with a guy who can literally go anywhere with just his thoughts. I’m not sure why he’s over thinking it with Wesley?

But excited to see what will come!

Wesley was already an engineering officer on the Titan. So including him should be easy.

Only in a deleted scene. Maybe the reason that they cut the scene is that it doesn’t make any sense.

But it doesn’t matter. If they showed Wesley back in Starfleet they could do the same on the show. I don’t care if we ever see Wesley again but it odd this is some kind of issue for McMahan.

I don”t find that odd at all. I appriciate that he takes into account that other shows might have other plans with Wesley. Maybe in Picard they want use him as Space Mozart…

If that’s the case, OK, that’s different then. But he never suggested that either. It just sounds like McMahan has an issue with bringing him back because of how he left by the end of TNG. But if it’s about other shows bringing Wesley back (he could even be on Prodigy), then yeah understandable.


I hope they don’t do many cameos. I prefer them to use original characters and new aliens. But hey, I love the show. It’s trek and I will watch it no matter what.

Tried watching this again the other day, I really tried. I got to the end of the first episode but I can’t force myself to endure any more of it.

I’ve watched it, it’s not nearly bad enough that I can’t finish it, but it really doesn’t hold my attention well, so usually I watch it in the background when i’m doing some work. It’s OK, I chuckle once or twice per episode. Nothing special, but I’m glad it exists and is doing well. I’m hopeful that even if it doesn’t get betters, some good animated Trek will come from its existence.

As someone who sat through the entire season hoping the show would get better I can tell you it didn’t. In fact, believe it or not, it actually got worse.

But, God help me, as a fan I feel obliged to sit though the next season holding out hope there will be improvement. Just like starting the next sports season with a team you know will likely suck but you are a fan so you follow anyway… Hoping some miracle happens.

Guys, it’s ok if this isn’t your sense of humour. But please accept that many of us DO find it funny.

It is something that everyone in our family enjoys, and after Picard S1 that’s huge. One of our kids went right off Trek after the abattoir scene with Iceb’s death. If Lower Decks hadn’t followed in the summer of 2020, I don’t think we could have turned that around.

All that stuff is how we wrote season 2. It’s very funny.

So I read that and thought… Please please please be true… Let’s hope season one was just a rough draft, they learned what they did wrong and made the comedic corrections they desperately need to do…