With today’s season finale of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, the next Trek show expected to arrive on Paramount+ is the animated comedy Lower Decks. The third season was officially announced to be arriving this summer, and we can now see how it likely kicks off.
Lower Decks clip in The Ready Room
The clip comes via The Ready Room official aftershow. In it, you can see Boimler and Mariner are at Boimler’s family vineyard talking about how to exonerate Captain Freeman, who was taken into custody at the end of season 2.
Also included in this week’s Ready Room is an inside look at the Strange New Worlds season finale, an interview with Ethan Peck (Spock) and executive producer Henry Alonso Myers, and Wil Wheaton’s tour of the SNW sets.
Watch it all below with the Lower Decks clip starting at 30:25. [International version HERE]
Wil Wheaton set up the clip by saying season three of Lower Decks is “coming soon,” but we still don’t have a specific official release date beyond the previously announced “summer 2022.”
ICYMI: Lower Decks season 3 teaser
A teaser trailer was released in April. [International version HERE]
Reminder: Lower Decks Season 2 arrives next week
The 2-disc collection of Lower Decks season 2 arrives on July 12 on Blu-ray and DVD and features over an hour of bonus content including exclusive featurettes and commentaries. You can pre-order the Blu-ray at Amazon priced at $24.99. And the DVD pre-order is priced at $19.99.
Hah! Of course there’s a vineyard, and of course Boims keeps those obsessively detailed and pointlessly redundant logs.
Bring on S3! And 4!
Can’t wait!!!
Heh, so Lower Decks is even parodying Picard now. I love it.
It’s a parody on TNG Season 4×02 “Family” as well as on “All Good things” (the outfit) with the automated machines flying over the wineyard coming from Picard 1×01 and 2×01.
The SNW finale was soooo several hours ago!
It’s time to move on people and back to the 24th century to see what has happened to our beloved Cerritos crew and the situation with Captain Freeman!!
It’s hilarious Boimler’s family runs a vineyard. Of course they do lol. I missed this show!
International version at https://intl.startrek.com/videos/watch-ethan-peck-and-henry-alonso-myers-beam-to-the-ready-room
CERRITOS STRONG!!
My favorite show from NuTrek is back! Is that Vineyard in Bordeaux or Sherman Oaks? Knowing this show probably closer to the latter! 😁
Mariner and Boimler working together to get her mom out of Starfleet jail where it probably only replicates black liquorice and yamok sauce while the prison holodecks are only programmed to a Bajoran folk dance festival to pass the time. It’s time to get her out of that Federation gulag. No one deserves that level of suffering regardless of the crime. 😥😕
She’s a human being dammit!
SEASON 3 LET’S GO!!!!!
Sherman Oaks is upscale suburbia, actually. Bakersfield, now that is about right for that joke…lol
Or Fresno.
Let’s not go too low here bro! 😆
I can’t believe I just saw a clip like this from a 21st century Kurtzman-Trek series. There’s another step back concerning objectivizing women in Star Trek. The 60’s version of GR, who unfortunately said — women were, essentially, sex objects always ready for action — that Gene would have been down with this clip for sure.
Mike McMahon, you are better than this, dude.
This clip is devoid of context so there might be additional reasons why the women in this clip acted like this, but stand-alone it’s also clearly parodying old school depictions of women fawning over uninterested men. It’s also weird that you seem to be bothered by the fact that the clip simply depicts a woman interested in sex. That’s not objectification. If every woman depicted was constantly interested in sex all the time (as was often the case in TOS and TNG), that’s objectification, but one instance of a sex interested woman is not objectification and the assertion to the contrary is to suggest that women can’t be interested in sex at all (which is an incredibly restrictive attitude).
The clip speaks for itself, and it has two separate instances of women interested in sex, not one, as you stated. And it doesn’t come across to me as a parody — there is no connective tissue there that I can see regarding what they might me doing a parody of.
This reminds me of Kirk with the two cat-chicks in his bed in STID — and I hated that scene for similar reasons. This is Star Trek, not Two-and-a-Half-Men. Star Trek needs to get past this low-brow BS.
The clip literally does not speak for itself, it is part of an episode with at least 20 more minutes of content, and is part of a show with currently 20 episodes that have strong female protagonists.
I’m standing by my reaction to viewing this. It’s fine if you have a different opinion.
Yeah, I mean, I get where you’re coming from. It did strike me as an odd choice tbh. I guess I’m just primed to be overly defensive of Trek because of how much people love to bash it for random reasons.
I think the really odd thing here is why highlight this clip so publicly given the content? Are they really that dense with how some might react to this?
If this scene just appears on the ep without this big advance release as a special clip, I doubt we are even talking about the issues with it, right?
Yeah it’s certainly a weird highlight. And honestly a trope that I could do without too.
The “strong female protagonists” only made it where they are because they had relatives helping them. The captain’s superior officer is her husband. The incompetent ensign’s superior officer is her mother.
Said ensign now seems to be roping in other entry level employees to steal a *military vessel* because they disagree with the outcome of due process. God, this sounds like a letter to ASK A MANAGER.
I disagree. Captain Freeman is clearly capable on her own, and Mariner also had success without her mother’s help for some of her career. There’s also Tendi and T’Ana which are both depicted at being very good at their jobs without any influence from anybody (including men) in their lives.
Just saw this after posting my earlier comment inquiring about glorifying nepotism, and I have to say… huh? Good grief, you have it wrong. Have you watched the show??
Carol Freeman may be married to an admiral, but she’s clearly portrayed as a competent, capable captain, every bit as deserving of command as any other. And Mariner, though certainly an insubordinate rule breaker, is abundantly competent and capable herself (if you want an example of an . actual incompetent officer in this show, see Ensign Fletcher, who didn’t last in Starfleet). And despite her extreme competence, her mother Captain would still have been only too happy to boot her off the ship when the series began; it’s only the interference from Mariner’s father the admiral that kept her there. That is nepotism, yes… but from only one parental vector, not both, and it is still in service of keeping an experienced, knowledgeable, capable officer in the service, one who ably demonstrates her value to the ship and to Starfleet on a fairly regular basis, insubordination or not.
Weird how your post starts off acting like River Termac is way off base, but then agreeing with the nepotism point anyway towards the end of your post? Perhaps you might have saved yourself some time by just saying, “yeah, you’re right?” ;-)
I fear now that Mariner is going to convince others to break Starfleet laws to get her mom out of trouble, and I bet her dad in some way aids this…that will be “nepotism on steroids.”
I agreed that there was nepotism from one parent – specifically the one who’s seen only occasionally, and not the one who’s actually a series regular who appears in every episode, and whose conflict with the daughter is in fact a fundamental driver for so much of the narrative. I didn’t say there wasn’t nepotism, I said that it didn’t glorify it, and what I’ve just described is indeed anything but glorifying it (at least unless you think merely having something in a story at all is exalting it, in which case the franchise has similarly justified murder, war, eugenics, etc. because all those things were present in Trek stories at one point or another).
This show specifically uses the loving but exceedingly strained and flinty relationship between Freeman and Mariner as a source of comedic and dramatic tension, and makes clear that this mother-daughter duo serves together as shipmates and as series regular cast members not because either of them wanted it but despite them not wanting it. As the series progresses their relationship evolves, of course, but the setup was clearly about throwing contrasting personalities together to watch dramatic and comedic sparks fly, not to celebrate and evangelize the virtues of nepotism.
The nepotism thing is an ongoing issue on this series. And now the daughter is presumably going to convince others to join her in stealing the ship to save her mom. My goodness, and we are suppose to accept this as canon too…Scotty, beam me out of here! LOL
Wow, so now its wrong to be interested in sex? What a truly bizarre mentality.
Problem is I never said that. I was responding to Kosh’s pronouncement that:
If every woman depicted was constantly interested in sex all the time (as was often the case in TOS and TNG), that’s objectification, but one instance of a sex interested woman is not objectification
So I pointed out that his “rule” here fails, because multiple women are interested in sex here, not one, so by applying Kosh’s own rule then this is objectification.
If you don’t like the Kosh Rule, take it up with Kosh. I never claimed this rule in the first place, but I was illustrating why it even fails here.
Either you’re being purposely obtuse or you just have a really hard time understanding what people are saying (writing here I suppose). Kosh’s remark about “every woman” being depicted as constantly interested in sex all the time is obviously referring to such a thing on a large scale. I.e. Every woman in Lower Decks always being interested in sex vs. a scene with a couple of woman (that is obviously a parody as well). Kosh does indeed write “but one instance of a sex interested woman,” but that can be, and should be, easily interpreted as this “instance in this specific scene” vs. if there is more than one woman in a scene being depicted as wanting sex, than that is objectification.
Kosh’s overall point stands, there is nothing wrong with depicting woman as interested in sex.
“it has two separate instances of women interested in sex”
A person being interested in sex is a bad thing because…?
Take it up with Kosh — I was responding to his weird rule on how to measure objectification that featured that language. And I don’t agree with this rule of his in any case. I was simply illustrating how even his rule as applied to this scene concludes that objectification is occurring.
Star Trek fans, if all is well, will make up stupid things to complain about just to complain about something.
will make up stupid things
Like this series? ;-)
You could always choose not to watch it? Lower Decks is definitely a different type of Star Trek – funnier, a bit crasser, less polished if you will – and its style isn’t for everyone. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong if it isn’t for you.
Mike McMahon starts ever Lower Decks writers room session by spotlighting tweets that use the #PreWGA hashtag on Twitter so that he and the rest of the writers can make fun of those writers. He is not, in fact, better than this.
That’s really disappointing to hear.
source?
i found it https://www.cbr.com/solar-opposites-showrunner-accused-homophobic-comments-hulu/ yeah, that’s pretty shitty actually. I assume he doesn’t do it in the ld writing room because the article only says solar opposites and I feel like Paramount would have a harder stance on shit like this to maintain the integrity of the star trek brand, but it still shows that he’s a shitty dude who disrespects other’s work
Thanks, my mistake. I conflated SO with LD.
they didn’t approve my link, but for anyone looking, the article is available with a quick google search of Mike McMahon #PreWGA. not a good look for him tbh, very dissapointed
Yea, this is pretty disappointing and makes MM looks both petty and immature.
I’m surprised that you’re surprised. Seriously, you’re surprised at sexism what with the way this show glorifies nepotism at every turn?
It “glorifies” nepotism? Huh?
Before you dismiss that so quickly, let’s watch this season and see how Mariner and her father leverage their Starfleet relationships and access to Starfleet systems to get their mom/wife out of trouble.
You are correct — I should not have been surprised. I guess I never thought Lower Decks would go there regarding old school TV objectifying of women. Very disappointing.
That’s not remotely what I took away from this, but okay. I freely concede my interpretation isn’t necessarily more correct than yours. But yours is one that wouldn’t even have occurred to me.
Like you I didn’t care for the scene of Kirk in bed with the Caitians in Into Darkness, along with most of the rest of the movie, but this doesn’t feel remotely like that to me.
I actually wouldn’t mind seeing Boimler in bed with two Caitians just to see Mariner’s shocked face lol.
How about instead let’s see Boimler’s reaction to seeing Mariner in bed to with two female Caitians! Now that would be a great 21st century response to old school TV tropes for sure! LOL
No one would be shocked to see Mariner in bed with two female Catians. Judging by all her stories, Mariner has lived lol. ;)
But Boimler is the uptight, nerdy guy which as this clip showed doesn’t even get the hint. But he did show up naked in the shuttle craft to have sex with his girlfriend in season one, so he can be daring at times too!
Lol so on the money! 😁😁
Mariner is such a trip! My boy Boimler is just more of a romantic. ☺️
C’mon season 3!!!
Yeah there is really nothing I can’t imagine Mariner NOT doing lol. Although the orgy simulation scene in I. Excretes obviously went too far for even her, but looked very intrigued watching Jennifer and Ensign Barnes make out. ;)
I wonder if they are going to try and top that scene this year? This show is bonkers and I’m here for it all!!! ;D
Star Trek does not need HEROGASMS. LOL
Oh shush and grow up. Women can get horney too, it’s not objectifying.
Oh, please.
Well that was kind of funny at least and I laughed.
Wasn’t that established in Season 2 that his family has a vineyard. It’s when he admits he’s not from Hawai’i.
I wonder why there is such a hold up with announcing the premiere date? It seems like they would have given the date by now.
The might be trying to get the international distribution dates and services finalized to prevent adverse fan reactions from overseas due their past issues in international distribution? Just a guess?
I like LD, but after such a great first season of SNW, I’m going to be going through withdrawl