It looks like the upcoming Lower Decks season will be the last one 😭😭 I didn’t have any expectations for this show but it has quickly grown to be one of my favorites. I’ll miss it
Sounds like the sort of terrible decision that Paramount would make.
But don’t you want to watch Starfleet Academy set hundreds of years into Star Trek’s future starring Commandant Tilly and a bunch of teenagers in San Francisco?
They know what middle-aged men like me want. Teen melodrama.
It’s really what all Trekkies have been hoping for.
deleted by creator
Not making a statement, just answering the question I was directly asked.
That’s fair. I responded to the wrong person.
Yes. Because middle aged men are the only Trek fan base.
I find a lot of these complaints to be kind of gatekeepy. Like the only people allowed to enjoy Star Trek are middle aged people and anything outside of that is sacrilege. There exists an entire range of people who have tastes that differ than yours. Getting frustrated that they’re making something not aimed at you is just bizarre when a whole other range of Trek exists. We got stuff for us. Now other people are getting stuff for them. Frankly I’m just glad that Trek is continuing and pulling in other people in new values instead of being stuck, dying, in the same echo chamber without anything new ever being added to the continuity. Without any new angles being explored.
I should add that a YA show about Starfleet Academy sounds like a way to save a hell of a lot of money on effects. No strange new worlds, no new life and new civilizations. Because cadets don’t leave the academy until their senior year.
This whole thing, to me, says “we’ve found a demographic we can tap into and save money in the process” and not “we need to make good Star Trek.”
Sounds like a way to save a hell of a lot of money on special effects
Dude some of the best Trek episodes are bottle episodes like Measure of a Man or (blanking on the name) the flute episode. Neither have flashy effects and Trek in general didn’t have flashy effects until recently. So suggesting that effects themselves being saved is nefarious when people have been complaining that the shows are too focused on effects and battles is odd. Especially when for decades Trek did not have a budget for effects in general and made them as simply and cheaply as possible. Saving money or spending money isn’t a bar onto whether the show will be good or not. Especially when Trek historically didn’t have money to use on effects and had to keep to a small budget.
" We’ve found a demographic we can tap into and save money in the process" and not " we need to make good Star Trek"
Again, the definition of “good Star Trek” is completely subjective and not an objective thing. Star Trek does not fit one specific mold and there has been plenty of bad Trek made over the years. Also plenty of very different Trek from new perspectives.
But my main problem here is the demographic line. You’re suggesting that the only reason to make for another demographic outside of the core Trekkies that have been catered to for decades is for money. Now businesses are gonna business and wanna make money but why is doing it for another demographic bad? Are they not allowed to enjoy it? Do their opinions not matter? Why is it such a bad thing that more demographics are being catered to with Trek? We’ve had 60 years. We can’t give them a single one? That is blatant gatekeeping. The opinions of other groups and demographics don’t matter as long as the core group is placated. It’s okay for everyone else to like it but only as long as that core group likes it too. That if it’s made for people other than the core group there is some inherent problem with that.
The reason I am so eagle eyed on this is because the same argument was thrown at Star Trek Discovery specifically due to LGBTQ characters. The fact that there are many meant that a lot of people kept complaining and have used the exact same argument that you have. That it was pandering to another demographic for the sake of money and that it wasn’t good. Meanwhile every LGBTQ person I know who loves the show has been ecstatic that were finally getting representation and that the show is embracing another demographic instead of just straight dude/straight woman yet again.
It’s fine to be concerned about the quality of something. Personally I think it’s extremely early to worry about that when we don’t even have the cast confirmed or any solid information about the show but quality problems is fine. Suggesting that appealing to demographics outside of the stereotypical nerd is bad or should be treated with suspicion doesn’t help anyone in anyway. It just makes people from that demographic feel like they’re alienated and don’t matter.
(I apparently didn’t hit send last night)
But my main problem here is the demographic line. You’re suggesting that the only reason to make for another demographic outside of the core Trekkies that have been catered to for decades is for money.
Yes. 100%. It’s always about money. Paramount does not greenlight Star Trek shows unless they think it will make them money.
Now businesses are gonna business and wanna make money but why is doing it for another demographic bad? Are they not allowed to enjoy it? Do their opinions not matter? Why is it such a bad thing that more demographics are being catered to with Trek?
Another demographic isn’t bad. Relying on that demographic as one of maybe two shows when it has not traditionally been a Star Trek demographic is a huge risk that comes entirely from bean counters.
The reason I am so eagle eyed on this is because the same argument was thrown at Star Trek Discovery specifically due to LGBTQ characters.
This is entirely different. This is not pandering. This is trying to get Paramount+ an entirely new viewer base at the expense of everything else because it’s what desperate Paramount+ executives feel their failing streaming service needs to survive. “We’re adding a few queer characters to get a gay audience” would be pandering, because it’s about gratification. This isn’t about gratification, this is about subscription fees. This isn’t “okay, we’re throwing you kids a bone so you’ll watch too,” this is, “we are creating this show entirely around the idea of getting new viewers to pay for Paramount+.”
And again, this isn’t the creative team behind Star Trek saying so, this is Paramount executives.
Suggesting that appealing to demographics outside of the stereotypical nerd is bad or should be treated with suspicion doesn’t help anyone in anyway.
It isn’t bad, but it should be treated with suspicion. Because all streaming service tentpole shows that get greenlit should be treated with suspicion right now. It should also be treated with suspicion because there’s zero movement on Legacy, Prodigy was shunted over to Netflix and now Lower Decks, despite being super popular, is ending with only 50 episodes total.
This is not the early streaming era where anything went and people had lots of creative freedom. This is an era where demographics are everything to executives.
I am absolutely cynical about such things because I have seen how such things play out over and over again.
Edit: If you haven’t read this post yet, this article supports my point: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/paramount-earnings-stock-cash-content-1235328376/
Another demographic isn’t bad. Relying on that demographic as one of maybe two shows when it has not traditionally been a Star Trek demographic is a huge risk that comes entirely from bean counters.
But there’s no evidence that they’re relying on them. You are basing all of this off of assumptions. You say elsewhere that SNW isn’t going to last more than 5 seasons but you don’t know that. Moreover, they’re currently only working on their 3rd. So that’s another 3 released seasons of show over a few years which would demonstrate that this YA show would not be the only Star Trek show. Then there’s the two confirmed Star Trek movies (S31 movie and a new Prequel movie) that have been announced as well. You keep acting like the only thing that’s going to be left is Starfleet Academy but there is no evidence of that.
“We’re adding a few queer characters to get a gay audience” would be pandering, because it’s about gratification. This isn’t about gratification, this is about subscription fees. This isn’t “okay, we’re throwing you kids a bone so you’ll watch too,” this is, “we are creating this show entirely around the idea of getting new viewers to pay for Paramount+.”
Personally I find that to be splitting hairs. Both are the same thing. Both are the company looking at a demographic and using that demographic for the sake of their own gain. But even then I do not understand this argument in any way whatsoever. It’s like saying “they are only doing the things people might like so they will vote for them.” Like… isn’t that the point of a for profit company? To do things people like and then get the money from them because they like it? Why is it so suspicious that they’re doing what they do to survive.
Because all streaming service tentpole shows that get greenlit should be treated with suspicion right now. It should also be treated with suspicion because there’s zero movement on Legacy, Prodigy was shunted over to Netflix and now Lower Decks, despite being super popular, is ending with only 50 episodes total.
Then be cautiously optimistic. I just find it insane that the show hasn’t been released and there’s not even promotional stuff for the show but the immediate assumption is that it sucks, will only be pandering towards an audience to get their money and should be treated with extreme suspicion. Doesn’t matter that the writers involved are people who have proven they legitimately care about the show, like Tawny Newsome.
This is not the early streaming era where anything went and people had lots of creative freedom. This is an era where demographics are everything to executives.
It’s the exact same era. Demographics have only ever been used for the sake of money. That’s just how for profit companies work. If you make something that appeals to a certain demographic then you can get the money of that demographic. That’s not a surprise or a sudden groundbreaking thing that’s only now happening. Moreover, it’s not a bad thing and has been my exact problem with the comments about demographics in this thread. It’s reductive to almighty hell and relates to another comment where I used LGBTQ in Discovery as an example. You are saying “They are only using demographic for money” but that is not a new thing. Kids shows are aimed towards a specific demographic because money can be made from them because the market is there for it. If money can be made from a Young Adult audience and they make a show for a Young Adult audience it isn’t surprising or suspicious that they’ve done that. Would you react the exact same way if another Trek show was made for the middle aged, white, straight audience? They’re a pretty big demographic and one that money can be made from which is why they’ve been milked ad infinitum. Why is it that when another demographic gets the same treatment now it’s suddenly problematic? You’re phrasing this entirely from the perspective of yourself. You’re not seeing it from the perspective of people in that demographic. You’re taking this too coldly and too calculated from solely a executives side and not considering the people who are going to get the show, whether they’d like it or whether they want it. Personally I’m not willing to make a single discussion about demographics in anyway until that demographic themselves actually weighs in. They might like it and love it and that’s awesome. Then they get Trek for them. They might hate it and the show gets cancelled. That’s just how media works. Not everything is going to be a hit, not everything is going to be safe and not everything is going to be for the same demographic endlessly.
I agree. I’m entirely speculating. But I am not hopeful, I’m just not. I’m sorry.
Would you react the exact same way if another Trek show was made for the middle aged, white, straight audience?
If it were sold by Paramount as “Middle Aged Star Trek” or “White Star Trek” or “Cis Star Trek” or whatever, yes. I have, aside from Prodigy, never heard Paramount, Vicacom, whatever, sell a Star Trek show as ‘we’re designing this show around this group of people.’
It instantly raises my suspicions.
deleted by creator
the “lgbtq+” characters in STD were borderline offense with the level of stereotyping they pulled, it’s not like we didn’t have LGBTQ+ characters before, of course they weren’t a fucking caricature…
it’s not like we didn’t have LGBTQ+ characters before,
No. We did not. There was no real LGBTQ+ representation on the show prior to DSC. Also the acronym is DSC or DIS, not STD. Not unless you’re going around saying STO for Original, STT for The next generation, ST9 for Deep Space 9, etc.
Saying that the representation was ‘borderline offensive’ is also laughable considering that the show and actors have won numerous awards from people like GLADD specifically for the representation of LGBTQ+ peoples.
considering you only see LGBTQ+ if it’s a stereotype, you must think Rain-man a decent representation of ASD…
then again, I love how you pretend at some argument of consistency when all the “one word” series are known mainly by said word (Voyager, Enterprise), and TOS just meaning the original series, so you have two examples here, both of which, if we went with their naming convention, would leave it called “D”.
Out of curiosity, who do you see as the LGBTQ+ characters? I can think of a few, but outside of mirror universe eps no one is actually established as queer. It’s all subtext, or implied.
Then there’s the big lesbian kiss with Jadzia, and that’s awesome, but immediately after they decide that they shouldn’t be doing this and they go their separate ways, and Jadzia never to my knowledge expresses her attraction to a woman again. Even in that case, it’s unique because said woman used to be a man. It’s not Jadzia just being attracted to a woman on her own merits.
What’s big about new Trek is that the characters are actually queer in the text, not just subtext. I’m a big fan of reading Garak and Bashir as queer, but they’re fundamentally not good representation because as far as the story itself is concerned, they’re two straight men. It’s only through the actors’ performances that the queer implications shine through.
The franchise should appeal to other demographics other than the ones that are currently enjoying it to broaden its portfolio and horizons, but not at their expense.
Discovery pissed a lot of people off, I know you like it, but it undeniably annoyed a lot of people alongside Picard. It feels like it was a middle ground between nostalgia plays and trying something new. Eventually it did lead to Strange New Worlds which a lot of established fans really like, but it took Discovery the average two seasons to figure out and find its footing. When it freed itself from being beholden to nostalgia grabs in the TOS era it became something unique that stood on its own in my opinion.
I really like both Strange New Worlds and Lower Decks, and Mike McMahan did a great job of creating something that was made with reverence for the source material despite being jocular in tone. I’m upset because I’ll miss it when it’s gone because the replacement is not something I am interested in. It’s like having a really great coworker move to another department and having a replacement who just doesn’t get you.
The franchise should appeal to other demographics other than the ones that are currently enjoying it to broaden its portfolio and horizons, but not at their expense.
No. Utterly wrong. A translation of this is “People should make stuff for others to enjoy but only as long as I get to enjoy it too.” Not everything is about you, not every show is going to be made to your tastes. Get over it and just don’t watch it. Just because it isn’t made for you or your demographic doesn’t mean that it isn’t worth making. Other people exist.
I want to enjoy my favorite franchise and you’re calling me an asshole because other people exist. I understand other people exist, I am a person, and I want to watch Star Trek just like you are a person who wants to watch Star Trek. Your strawman argument is needlessly hostile when all we both want to do is have and watch different kinds of Star Trek. Just because my preferential parts of the franchise happened to come before yours does not make it invalid. The three concurrent airing shows proves they can all exist at the same time. They should continue to do so in different forms, exploring strange new worlds.
You can make more than one show that appeals to multiple demographics.
I have never at any point called you an asshole. I’m not continuing any conversation with you if you’re going to stuff words down my throat and flagrantly lie about what has been said.
Bro you literally strawmanned my argument. You literally put words in my mouth. I don’t get why you’re always on edge. We’re literally just discussing fucking science fiction on the internet. Did I need to say “essentially calling me an asshole?” Should I have said “being hostile about opinions?”
I really don’t get you Stamets. Every time we interact you’re just super aggro.
It makes me feel like I can’t contribute in any meaningful way to threads around you because you’ll just call me super rude things like “utterly wrong” which I think is massively aggressive for no reason just on the basis that we disagree on something.
I’m not trying to be gatekeepy. I would be okay if this show if it wasn’t going to soon apparently be the only Star Trek show other than maybe Prodigy, something else that is there just for young viewers. The long-term legacy of Star Trek should not rest on the shoulders of a YA show and a kids animated show.
Wasn’t Prodigy cancelled entirely? Didn’t they sell the final animated season to Netflix?
Last I heard it was up in the air whether or not Netflix would keep funding it.
Did they also say they were ending SNW? You’re sounding like they’ve cancelled like the entire slate just to have this Starfleet Academy show.
They have not, but do you really think it will continue past season 5?
You may not be trying to be gatekeepy but every single comment of yours in this thread directly fits that definition. Discovery was the only show for a time and then others came about. Just because it is going to be the only show active at the moment means nothing. Especially when Legacy has been pushed hard. Could be they’re gearing up for the release of that. Could be a thousand other things. But it doesn’t help anyone to be negative, focus on the downsides and then suggest that its not even worth it because its not for the typical Trek demographic.
See my other comment. This really isn’t about the show itself, this is about Paramount executives dictating what a show should be rather than let the creative team do so.
Legacy has been pushed hard by the creative team. I don’t see any sign of Paramount executives going for it… probably because it would be a lot more expensive.
All Paramount cares about right now is getting people to join and stay on Paramount Plus. Everything Star Trek (apart from maybe movies) has to be viewed through that lens at the moment.
I wish the entertainment business wasn’t all about money, I really do. But it is. And that doesn’t make for good television most of the time.
Kurtzman has actively said he’s trying to get Legacy done but that he cannot snap his fingers and make it happen because Paramount exists. I’d say that’s a pretty big sign along with two other Trek shows winding down and opening budget for a new show. Legacy won’t be cheap to make and Discovery and Lower Decks are the two more expensive shows to make. Discovery also uses CBS stages in Toronto at their newly built studio, stages which will now be available after Discovery ends.
Viewing everything through the lens of money is fine and should be done that way all the time because it is a profit driven company. But you’ve been phrasing this like even the concept of appealing to a different demographic is bad. That is my primary issue with what you’ve been saying here. That appealing to someone who isn’t a straight white dude is not a good thing. You suggested as much with your first comment saying “what, you don’t wanna watch teenage drama?” I know a lot of people that would but you’re not reflecting their opinion here. You’re just insinuating that because it’s for a different demographic that makes it immediately bad and suspicious without ever considering the perspective of someone in that demographic. You’re reducing them to a profit point and suggesting that they only matter in the sense that money can be gotten from them. No consideration has been given to whether or not they’d want that type of show or what that demographic thinks. It’s just “they’re only using them for money” which is accurate about your demographic too and extremely reductive to discussions.
Kurtzman has actively said he’s trying to get Legacy done but that he cannot snap his fingers and make it happen because Paramount exists.
But that’s my point. Kurtzman is not the one greenlighting these shows. That’s not in his power. He can want to make Legacy more than anything in the world, but Paramount is the one that gets to say which show gets made. And maybe even Kurtzman suggested, “let’s do a Starfleet Academy show.” But him suggesting it is not the reason it was greenlit.
But you’ve been phrasing this like even the concept of appealing to a different demographic is bad.
As I said, my issue is that this, right now, looks like it will be the only Star Trek show left after SNW is over (and I doubt it will last more than five seasons either), which I maintain is a terrible idea, specifically because it is intended to appeal to a specific demographic. Animated shows aside, Star Trek has never been created with the intention to appeal to a specific demographic. It has always been a show for everyone. Paramount is explicitly calling this a YA show.
A YA Star Trek show is just fine. I think it’s great if it is a good show and introduces a new audience to it.
A YA Star Trek show being the only thing left is a terrible idea. And that is what is the case right now. Maybe Legacy will be greenlit and I will change my tune, but as it is right now, I will maintain that a YA Star Trek being the only Star Trek show left is a bad thing and is not what most current fans want.
Is it really a good idea to introduce a new audience a new audience to Star Trek at the expense of the current audience? Because I don’t think it is.
And before you say it, I would definitely not say that Discovery would be the same sort of thing. Discovery was not sold as a show made to a specific audience.
Let me add one thing I am hopeful about for the show, since I have only said negative things so far. I am hopeful that the show does more to flesh out the Star Trek of the 32nd century. I think that would be a fine thing. Discovery started down an interesting path and continuing down that path is not a bad idea.
Just not, again, at the expense of the rest of Star Trek.
Edit: One more thought, since you brought up LGBT+ representation in Star Trek, something you know I support and wish had happened much earlier… If Paramount announced a show, selling it as “LGBT+ Star Trek,” wouldn’t that make you at least a little suspicious about the motivations behind the show and what executives might demand of it?
That’s not something that are considering I hope.
https://www.startrek.com/news/new-series-star-trek-starfleet-academy
The Tilly part is just being assumed at this point, but it would be the obvious choice. I predict suckage regardless.
Edit: Now confirmed to be in the 32nd century, Tilly still a maybe. https://trekmovie.com/2024/04/10/mary-wiseman-really-doesnt-want-to-talk-about-tilly-returning-on-star-trek-starfleet-academy/
I find this to be an incredibly reductive stance. To just anticipate it’s going to suck and act negative towards the thing before there’s anything even done for it. I don’t understand it. In a franchise that pushes so frequently for the forefront of hope and positivity it just blows my mind that people are so angry about something that they might not like made for people other than them.
As I said below, it feels like a money saver and a way to appeal to an untapped demographic, not a way to make good Star Trek. If it’s good despite that, great. But I don’t think it will be. I don’t even blame anyone involved with the actual production. This is Paramount killing its own brand because they think it will get younger people to sign up for Paramount+.
Not a way to make good Star Trek
And that’s what I mean by gatekeepy comments. ‘Good Star Trek’ is completely subjective, not objective. It does not fit one specific mold or one specific criteria. Just because it’s not for you doesn’t mean that it’s bad Star Trek. Just because it’s for a different demographic doesn’t mean that it’s bad Star Trek. More over, It has not been released yet. You are basing this entirely off of concepts and theories thrown around not even the content itself and holding up to a personal card as to what Star Trek is. There’s no allowance for evolution or even leeway when the show isn’t released. It isn’t “killing its own brand” to introduce people to the franchise who aren’t you or the same demographic that’s been appealed to for the past 60 years.
This is a really dangerous and negative mindset to have and one of the reasons why I have avoided Star Trek fanbases for so long. Why so many people I know avoid the fanbase. Because we’re tired of seeing people act like they’re the arbiter of Trek and like there’s some golden framing that Star Trek fits into and has never stepped outside of. It’s also the exact same mindset that went after TNG when it was released for not being like TOS, after DS9 for not being like TNG or TOS, Voyager for not being like everything else, Enterprise, Discovery, Lower Decks, Strange New Worlds, etc. It’s just another in a long line of really negative behavior and one that I genuinely never expected from you.
I think you’re missing what I’m saying here. As I said, if it’s good despite that, that’s great. I’m just not optimistic about it because Paramount is going down the same road as Max. It’s really not about the people behind Star Trek. It’s about the people behind Paramount.
If Goldsman and the others can take Paramount trying to screw them over, and that’s what I believe Paramount is doing, and turn it into something good, I hope they can. I just am not optimistic about it because this sounds to me in every way like executives saying “find a way to get young people into it without costing us too much money” and not producers and showrunners saying “let’s make a really good show.”
As you know, this is an industry I have a lot of experience with. Executive meddling is something I can smell. This is totally executive meddling.
Can good things come out of executive meddling? Yes. But much more often no. And that isn’t the fault of Akiva Goldsman or the Roddenberry family or anyone who actually likes Star Trek.
That is my issue. That these decisions are not coming from people who like Star Trek, they’re coming from people who want to use Star Trek for the most greedy reasons.
Edit: You brought up Discovery already. Discovery was not meddled with, at least not at first. The showrunners were given a huge amount of creative freedom because it was a free-for-all at that point and they were able to do all sorts of things executives might have turned down otherwise. The entire media landscape has changed since then.
It’s teen drama. It’s not my cup of tea no matter how good. I understand Dawson’s Creek was very popular. I didn’t like it.
Okay. Doesn’t change a single thing about what I said though. You aren’t every Star Trek fan and not every Star Trek show has to appeal to you. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it.
While there is nothing wrong with trying something new, the point of using a franchise is to leverage the existing fanbase.
If you can’t get the fanbase enthusiastic you have a problem. Since you aren’t leveraging the existing fan base and the franchise will alienate some of your new target fan base.
Replying to every comment that expresses an ambivalent or pessimistic view about a new show doesn’t change that. It just makes this space seem hostile to discussion.
deleted by creator
Ehehehehe… Wait, you’re not joking.
This and SNW are their only good shows. You can easily tell from watching Lower Decks that the show runners love and get Star Trek. Hopefully they have been given enough time to wrap up the series the way they want.
Oi, don’t forget Prodigy!
I started watching Prodigy this year and I was honestly surprised at how good it was considering I don’t generally go for shows about kids.
I wish I liked SNW. It looks beautiful. But I’m not convinced by any of the characters and the first few episodes I saw didn’t seem very trekkish.
I would give it a bit longer, but in fairness I liked it from the start so it might just not be for you.
I like that it’s properly an ensemble show and it does a much better job of living in the established universe than disco does in my opinion.
Sometimes I feel so out of touch with society. How can you cancel a show as good as this?
Shows often get terrible with time.
Maybe it’s for the best it ends on a high note?
Maybe, but I feel like the show still had a lot of stuff to explore.
Considering what happened to Rick and Morty, this might be right.
As far as I can tell, Dan Harmon got mad that he accidentally started writing a decent continuing plot into his show that was supposed to be about nihilism or something. Either that or he sabotaged the show after breaking up with his girlfriend and writer on the show. Point being, I don’t think there was any reason for Rick and Morty to go tits up beyond Dan making terrible decisions for bad reasons. He literally made that “storyline” episode, apparently mad that fans gave a shit.
Lower decks is such a fantastic exploration of the universe of star trek.
It adds more than its own isolated contribution to the federation universe!Literally the embodiment of star fleet.
I had written so much more, vut it van be simplified…
Voyager eventually had to come home, every star trek series has had it’s final goal.
Every ship has a lower deck crew of unsung hero’s - that’s at least 6 ships to explore (maybe more, maybe less… I don’t mean to faux pas). Never mind significant engagements (is movies)This makes me sad, but it also may be for the best. Lower Decks is great, but it has one of those premises that relies on the characters remaining stagnant. I don’t really want to watch 10 seasons of these characters being junior staff while still being at the center of the most significant events on the ship, or have Mariner’s character regress every few seasons so she can relearn the difference between questioning authority and self-sabotage. I’m not saying that’s happened yet, but they had to promote the characters once already. There’s only so long they can go before either their lack of development becomes a problem or the characters have to stop being Lower Deckers. I’d rather they end too soon than too late.
Yes but, who says the show couldn’t evolve around its cast and follow them on their path to become officers? I’d certainly watch that. Would even be interesting to see some slightly higher ranked non bridge officers do their thing in their daily lives.
Yeah, I’d definitely watch that, my point is just that it doesn’t really feel like that would be Lower Decks anymore, that feels like a new show (“Star Trek: Middle Management”?). Who knows, if there’s enough enthusiasm for Lower Decks, maybe we’ll get a follow up that’s like what you’re describing, or maybe Mariner and friends having misadventures on their first command.
And don’t get me wrong, they definitely could keep going with this show as-is for a while longer. But it feels like eventually this is going to stop being, “the untold stories from Starfleets low-ranking support crew,” and just be, “TNG but irreverent.” Which is also fun, but also a different show (in fact I think that’s called The Orville).
Fair. I hope, that they replace LD with something as good. The best Trek we had in a long time, besides maybe SNW. And with the other already announced future star trek shows n films not sounding as exciting to me, I really hope we get something new worthwhile
deleted by creator
Stargate SG-1 is based on the real-life Air Force, and even they kept forgetting how rank works. They had actual military consultants nagging them to promote Carter… repeatedly.
That’s true, but there’s a line from season 7 of the Simpsons that feels relevant. Burns asks who Homer is for the 100th times and Smithers says something to the effect of, “Simpson, sir. All the recent events of your life have revolved around him in some way.” Lower Decks is starting to feel a bit like this. Watching the Lower Deckers be at the center of events that affect the entire Cerritos or even the whole Federation while still being nobodies is starting to get a little silly.
That being said, I don’t think the show needs to end after this next season either. I think they could get at least 2, maybe even 3 good seasons out this premise and these characters. But having the showrunners know they’re working on their last season and bringing it to a good conclusion isn’t the worst thing in the world. It’s definitely better than running until it jumps the shark and getting unceremoniously cancelled between seasons. And maybe we’ll get a good follow-up show, like something based around a Commander Mariner, or even a Lower Decks set in a different era (I would love a TOS style Lower Decks).
There’s only so long they can go before either their lack of development becomes a problem or the characters have to stop being Lower Deckers.
I don’t know man. I see your point and don’t entirely disagree, but… Lower Decks is an animation show. My point being that for example, Lisa Simpson is obviously very gifted academically, and has done a lot of things in her life, but she’s still a 2nd grader. As another example, Cartman, Kenny, Kyle and Stan have only advanced from the 3th grade to the 4th grade, and they’re pretty often involved in global problems.
So I really don’t think that would be the issue. Not for me, at least.
Yeah, but the Simpsons is a story of the week sitcom. Lower Decks has season long story lines with status quo changing results, like Mariner and Freeman’s relationship being reveled, or Rutherford getting his memory back. They even had to acknowledge in Season 3 that the Lower Deckers were kinda famous for all of the big events they’d been involved in. They definitely recognize the passage of time and consequences of actions, unlike things like Simpsons, Futurama, Family Guy, Bob’s Burgers, etc. (South Park is kinda a whole different beast, but I’d argue it’s changed so much over the years it could be considered 3 or 4 different shows at this point.)
Animation shows can engage in it, or choose not to. Simple as.
Real life shows are more constrained by actors aging.
A season could be days or years, or nothing at all, depending on the decisions of the writers.
There’s no problem with it. You’re making a mountain out of a molehill.
I don’t know what to tell you man, there’s a difference in storytelling between Futurama and Disenchanted. I think most people would find it jarring if they went from season-long story threads and character progression to a weekly status quo reset.
The emphasis being on:
I think most people
Well, I’m trying to be polite as I explain that going from serialized storytelling to a, “Status Quo Is God,” sitcom would be an extremely weird choice that would probably ruin the show.
I’m trying to politely explain that I understand what you’re saying, but that I think that it is a false dilemma.
I don’t know if you watch Doctor Who, but it is notorious for not being consistent with it’s own established canon. One could say the established canon is that there is no established canon. This isn’t too unrelated, because Trek does a bit of it too. Some implications in certain episodes are left just ignored even though they’d actually have massive implications. Transporter incidents, holodeck mishaps, instant across the universe speeds, all that jazz. They need them for an episode, but weirdly the whole Trek world isn’t changed by the implications of something. Also unimaginably weird and universe upsetting things are pretty normal in Trek.
So why would it be that weird for the Lower Deckers to just be themselves for X seasons? Progress as needed, or don’t. You seem to think your opinions mean that somehow it would be so weird none would watch it. Not true. In the slightest.
This had better come back 2 or 3 times like Futurama.
Underrated advantage of animation … voices don’t age that much.
And be slightly worse each time?
Bite my shiny metal ass
Ha ha funny quote, but really, the latest revival is just… Tragic. Disenchantment was supposed to be a second Futurama too, but in the end it came with unfunny jokes and an uninteresting premise. It kinda feels like Groening stopped being funny.
Disenchantment was just jam packed with bad meta-jokes for writers and characters that literally just state their inner motivations. It felt like he was either 1) tired of trying or 2) trying to write show for comedy writers, and failing.
Sureee, but jt js not comedy writers that will be watching it. And if you see the latest season of Futurama, it’s all meta jokes and digs at stuff that is 5 years late from when it aired.
In this household we can’t ever remember what the show is even called. Did we ever finish watching Past-o-rama? Oh, cliffhanger? That sucks.
Fucking Paramount…
Indeed. They’re the worst thing that’s ever happened to Star Trek.
Why? Were the numbers terrible or something?
Which numbers do you mean, the numbers of people who enjoy it or the numbers of people who are willing to pay Paramount a monthly fee to watch it? Because the latter is the problem, and they think this will save them money, but they are fucked. Paramount Plus does not have enough programming for a lot of people, myself included, to justify their monthly fee. Their selection is paltry. I love Star Trek, but not enough for that.
Paramount is a mismanaged mess currently in search of a buyer. It’s ridiculous considering the franchises and back catalogs it owns.
It’s going to destroy Star Trek in the near future. Like the end of TOS did and like Insurrection did. But at least it keeps bouncing back.
This was always a problem and something that I fear is going to curse streaming until it dies. Everyone saw how well Netflix did for itself, and wants a cut of the pie, failing to realize that Netflix’s success was entirely because the pie was all in one place for people to enjoy.
All these smaller streaming apps that fizzle out after 2-5 years would have made more money for themselves if they had just negotiated out licensing deals with Netflix or any other major shareholder. Exclusivity is anti-consumer and sooner or later anti-consumer tactics will kill a product or service as soon as something better comes a long or the consumers decide they really don’t need it.
Lower Decks is the only reason I subscribe to Paramount. Although I do it strategically: wait for season to end, subscribe, watch it all, unsub.
Ahhhhhhh, that was my favorite one. So much fun.
Noooooo! Why! Can’t we take a some of the money completely wasted on discovery and use it on lower desks?
Noooooo!
