Blender
Registered User
- Dec 2, 2009
- 51,428
- 45,314
TV: The All - Encompassing Star Trek Thread. Debate Long + Prosper
- Thread starter Daisy Jane
- Start date
Ducks in a row
Go Ducks Quack Quack
Ducks in a row
Go Ducks Quack Quack
LeafalCrusader
Registered User
Blender
Registered User
- Dec 2, 2009
- 51,428
- 45,314
If modern Trek can promote a cadet who was expelled from the academy to captain, anything is possible.
I haven't watched the episode yet, but I read this review earlier today:
'Star Trek: Lower Decks': Animated Satire Is Highly Illogical
'Star Trek: Lower Decks': Animated Satire Is Highly Illogical
Blender
Registered User
- Dec 2, 2009
- 51,428
- 45,314
I watched it, and it was bad. Worst of all though it wasn't funny, I didn't laugh once. That review above calling it satire is rather kind I'd say.
I honestly don't know how someone could have watched the TNG episode Lower Decks and created this from it, it doesn't even make sense.
I thought the Rutherford and Tendi scenes were the best parts of the entire episode and could have provided a more humor if the jokes were better, since one involved a person on a date that just continued their date through a terrible crisis while helping to solve it, and the other had to deal with an outrageous virus outbreak on their first day on duty. The characters themselves though were played straight and seemed like actual Starfleet officers, unlike most of the other characters like the two mains or Commander Frat Bro.
It was certainly not on the level of The Orville, which was at its foundation a serious Star Trek show with humor mixed in where each episode is about something while providing laughs, because clearly Seth MacFarlane deeply understands Star Trek. What was this episode even about? If The Orville were set in the Star Trek universe it would work without blowing up canon or feeling completely out of place, that's what makes it so brilliant.
I honestly don't know how someone could have watched the TNG episode Lower Decks and created this from it, it doesn't even make sense.
I thought the Rutherford and Tendi scenes were the best parts of the entire episode and could have provided a more humor if the jokes were better, since one involved a person on a date that just continued their date through a terrible crisis while helping to solve it, and the other had to deal with an outrageous virus outbreak on their first day on duty. The characters themselves though were played straight and seemed like actual Starfleet officers, unlike most of the other characters like the two mains or Commander Frat Bro.
It was certainly not on the level of The Orville, which was at its foundation a serious Star Trek show with humor mixed in where each episode is about something while providing laughs, because clearly Seth MacFarlane deeply understands Star Trek. What was this episode even about? If The Orville were set in the Star Trek universe it would work without blowing up canon or feeling completely out of place, that's what makes it so brilliant.
The Nemesis
Semper Tyrannus
That was dumb. The two main characters (Mariner and Boiler or whatever) were super annoying modern comedy cliches that weren't the slightest bit funny. Rutherford and Tendi were at least potentially interesting, but most of what they did wasn't that funny either.
And that's the problem. The potentially interesting Trek stuff constantly gets hijacked by the comedy, and the comedy just sucks too much to make up for how much it drags everything down.
It's clear the writers like Star Trek deep down, but they're so busy trying to pretend that they're clever that it they couldn't do anything legitimately interesting with their grasp of the franchise beyond "LOOK AT THIS SILLY REFERENCE WE'RE MAKING! ISN'T THIS A THING YOU REMEMBER FROM ANOTHER TREK SHOW THAT YOU LOVED? THEN YOU'LL LOVE THIS SHOW TOO! WE REFERENCED LIKE 10 IMPORTANT THINGS IN 30 SECONDS! LOVE US!!!!"
Seriously, Mariner was the worst. I'm not sure how her nattering try-hard too-cool-for-school PG edginess (which is ironic for a show that's supposed to be skirting a harder rating given its looseness with using some amounts of profanity, nudity, and violence) is supposed to make her fun or interesting. And it seems like the show is pretty much intent on casting her as the primary comedy vehicle if she plays the zany goofball to Boiler's anxious straight-man
In that Rolling Stone review, there was one commentor who brought up a good point: Why are we watching the nobody officers on a nobody ship? If the ship only gets crap duty, then what makes doing the worst and most boring parts of that crap duty interesting at all? They would've been better off to have it be the unimportant nobody crew members of a significant and important ship. the Lower Decks TNG episode worked because we knew the Enterprise was up to some serious stuff and seeing how the rank and file dealt with the fact that they weren't aware of all the aspects of whatever super-important stuff they were part of was part of its intrigue. Mine the comedy out of a story of ensigns carrying out menial tasks that have greater implications than they could possibly conceive of. Otherwise we're going to constantly be told that the Cerritos is an unimportant, do-nothing ship that somehow has to keep finding itself in big situations to justify the level of insanity they play to. Of course, the real reason it has to be a ship at the bottom of the totem pole is likely to justify the ship having f***-up crew members the level of half our main cast. Because setting this on a premiere science/exploration ship (that's not the Enterprise) would mean that they would have their pick of far better crew and wouldn't ever put up with the likes of the principle cast of this show.
Just to be totally fair to it I'll probably give it 2 more episodes to convince me it's anything but another example of how much Kurtzman and company blow at making good Trek. But I don't have much hope.
Also what made this worse was that I watched the episode sandwiched in between CTV Sci-Fi's airing of DS9 on Thursday nights. Including a comedy-heavy Ferangi episode. You know you're in trouble when the most serious and dramatic Trek of the franchise was also churning out occasional comedy episodes far funnier than your specific and intended sitcom show managed.
And that's the problem. The potentially interesting Trek stuff constantly gets hijacked by the comedy, and the comedy just sucks too much to make up for how much it drags everything down.
It's clear the writers like Star Trek deep down, but they're so busy trying to pretend that they're clever that it they couldn't do anything legitimately interesting with their grasp of the franchise beyond "LOOK AT THIS SILLY REFERENCE WE'RE MAKING! ISN'T THIS A THING YOU REMEMBER FROM ANOTHER TREK SHOW THAT YOU LOVED? THEN YOU'LL LOVE THIS SHOW TOO! WE REFERENCED LIKE 10 IMPORTANT THINGS IN 30 SECONDS! LOVE US!!!!"
Seriously, Mariner was the worst. I'm not sure how her nattering try-hard too-cool-for-school PG edginess (which is ironic for a show that's supposed to be skirting a harder rating given its looseness with using some amounts of profanity, nudity, and violence) is supposed to make her fun or interesting. And it seems like the show is pretty much intent on casting her as the primary comedy vehicle if she plays the zany goofball to Boiler's anxious straight-man
In that Rolling Stone review, there was one commentor who brought up a good point: Why are we watching the nobody officers on a nobody ship? If the ship only gets crap duty, then what makes doing the worst and most boring parts of that crap duty interesting at all? They would've been better off to have it be the unimportant nobody crew members of a significant and important ship. the Lower Decks TNG episode worked because we knew the Enterprise was up to some serious stuff and seeing how the rank and file dealt with the fact that they weren't aware of all the aspects of whatever super-important stuff they were part of was part of its intrigue. Mine the comedy out of a story of ensigns carrying out menial tasks that have greater implications than they could possibly conceive of. Otherwise we're going to constantly be told that the Cerritos is an unimportant, do-nothing ship that somehow has to keep finding itself in big situations to justify the level of insanity they play to. Of course, the real reason it has to be a ship at the bottom of the totem pole is likely to justify the ship having f***-up crew members the level of half our main cast. Because setting this on a premiere science/exploration ship (that's not the Enterprise) would mean that they would have their pick of far better crew and wouldn't ever put up with the likes of the principle cast of this show.
Just to be totally fair to it I'll probably give it 2 more episodes to convince me it's anything but another example of how much Kurtzman and company blow at making good Trek. But I don't have much hope.
Also what made this worse was that I watched the episode sandwiched in between CTV Sci-Fi's airing of DS9 on Thursday nights. Including a comedy-heavy Ferangi episode. You know you're in trouble when the most serious and dramatic Trek of the franchise was also churning out occasional comedy episodes far funnier than your specific and intended sitcom show managed.
I just watched it. It was too focused on rapid fire comedy (that wasn't funny to me) and didn't slow down any to establish anything else (like drama, story or sincere character interaction). It was just a straight farce. In fact, it's what I feared that The Orville would be when I heard that Seth MacFarlane would be doing a Star Trek parody and that I ended up being wrong about.
I'm not sure who the audience is here. It's not smart enough for adults, yet it's too adult for kids. I suppose that that makes it for teens. Trek shouldn't be for just one age range, though, IMO. If you're going to have dumb humor that's tailored for teens, then also have some cleverness and smart sci-fi concepts to appeal to the older nerds. Also, have a little bit of serious drama for those who like that (as well as to give us a break and make the humor unexpected when it happens). Not everything has to really appeal to everyone, but everyone should find something to like. I think that they missed that mark here because there's little else to like if you don't find the humor funny. Well, I suppose that there are also the Trek references, though relying on fan service to make your show appealing isn't a good sign, either.
I'm not sure who the audience is here. It's not smart enough for adults, yet it's too adult for kids. I suppose that that makes it for teens. Trek shouldn't be for just one age range, though, IMO. If you're going to have dumb humor that's tailored for teens, then also have some cleverness and smart sci-fi concepts to appeal to the older nerds. Also, have a little bit of serious drama for those who like that (as well as to give us a break and make the humor unexpected when it happens). Not everything has to really appeal to everyone, but everyone should find something to like. I think that they missed that mark here because there's little else to like if you don't find the humor funny. Well, I suppose that there are also the Trek references, though relying on fan service to make your show appealing isn't a good sign, either.
Last edited:
Blender
Registered User
- Dec 2, 2009
- 51,428
- 45,314
This episode also contained probably the worst example of workplace sexual harassment I have seen in a Star Trek series as well, and not only was it never dealt with it was played as quick joke and quickly moved on from. Mariner takes the new Ensign Tendi to the holodeck within hours of her first day on the ship that is her first assignment, and unprompted shows her porn. Just as bad her supposed mentor Boimler seems to know that something like this will happen, and leaves her alone with Mariner and does nothing about it. How can you be this tone deaf in 2020 to write this into your episode and no one on the staff points out how problematic that your show in the 24th century is showing a freshly graduated woman being exposed to porn on her first day or work and having to just accept it?
RobBrown4PM
Pringles?
- Oct 12, 2009
- 8,889
- 2,808
Just watch the Orville, it's what Nu-Trek should have been/needed to be with some comedic elements thrown in.
Seth Macfarlane is our saviour now.
Seth Macfarlane is our saviour now.
Blender
Registered User
- Dec 2, 2009
- 51,428
- 45,314
I have seen an old interview with Rick Berman where he was telling a story of working on "Deja-Q" and the original story was Q faking that he lost his powers as a prank on the Enterprise. Berman took it to Roddenberry who said he liked the concept, but asked "what is this episode about?" and Berman responded with something about Q pranking the Enterprise, and Roddenberry said that wasn't enough and that every episode needed some sort of underlying message/lesson so he suggested that they explore the consequences of this god-like being suddenly being mortal and what that means. Berman said he tried to maintain this standard for the rest of the time he was in charge of Star Trek, that everything needed to have an underlying message or lesson in it. You contrast that with interviews with Kurtzman about Discovery or Picard and he's been asked what it's about, and he says "Picard" or "Burnham" in response, the vast majority of the episodes aren't about anything.
This is where I think MacFarlane and The Orville succeed so well, it's a silly parody show but still every episode follows that Star Trek format. When I say I want a classic Star Trek show, I don't mean it needs to rigidly follow the style of classic Star Trek, I mean that at its foundation it should make you think and every episode should have some sort of message that prompts that. If current Trek did an episode like "The Devil in the Dark" from TOS, they would likely have the crew kill the evil space creature at the end of the episode to save the day, while the TOS episode has you understanding and sympathizing with this intelligent and advanced being that is just different than us. Through Kirk we transition from him being determined to kill the creature to restore the mining operation at the start of the episode, to defending, helping, and negotiating with it to come to a compromise. Discovery season 2 at least had a couple episodes that followed this format, and I thought that was an improvement, but it hasn't been enough.
archangel2
Registered User
- May 19, 2019
- 2,130
- 1,273
Paramount Pictures halts Noah Hawley’s ‘Star Trek’ movie
Yeah, they just got no idea what the heck they are doing with the franchise
Yeah, they just got no idea what the heck they are doing with the franchise
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 48,784
- 29,318
I did not expect that honestly. Not a fan of his other stuff so I took a long time to give it a try, but it really is very good.
Blender
Registered User
- Dec 2, 2009
- 51,428
- 45,314
Emma Watts’ Top Priority At Paramount: Figure Out ‘Star Trek’ Reboot – Deadline
How about don't "reboot" anything and do something that is new and inventive?
How about don't "reboot" anything and do something that is new and inventive?
That article makes it sound like they might reboot it simply to save money on casting. What a sad reason to reboot, especially barely 10 years after the last reboot. Maybe, if these movies were actually compelling science fiction with interesting things to say, instead of shallow action spectacles like most, the cast would actually want to return and take reasonable salaries to do so.
BTW, I already get Emma Watson and Emily Watson mixed up, and, now, we have an Emma Watts?
Blender
Registered User
- Dec 2, 2009
- 51,428
- 45,314
There is no one with a vision or a plan in charge, it's pathetic. JJ Abrams only cared about making his consolation Star Wars movie and actively disliked Star Trek, he had no interest in the franchise. Alex Kurtzmanis a hack that has never made anything good, and he certainly has no vision for his Star Trek Universe that he somehow failed upwards into running. Star Trek has had its ups and downs over the years, but there has usually been someone in charge with a vision and a plan instead of just a studio meddling with no goal beyond making money.That article makes it sound like they might reboot it simply to save money on casting. What a sad reason to reboot, especially barely 10 years after the last reboot. Maybe, if these movies were actually compelling science fiction with interesting things to say, instead of shallow action spectacles like most, the cast would actually want to return and take reasonable salaries to do so.
BTW, I already get Emma Watson and Emily Watson mixed up, and, now, we have an Emma Watts?
I know I am probably preaching to the choir here but I feel like at least 90% of the people in the TV and movie business are extremely lazy hustlers just looking to make as much money as they can as easily as they can.
Why create something new and unique? That takes time and effort. Why not milk an existing brand knowing that many people will just throw their time and money away to associate with things related to that brand for their consumption?
Probably the best take I found on Disney Star Wars was a reviewer on YouTube who described it as "poop in a box." You spend your money because it says Star Wars on it and expect the product to fulfill or exceed your expectations as Star Wars products have in the past. But you come to find out that you wasted your money on
Rpenny
Registered User
- Feb 23, 2019
- 1,701
- 976
Agree. A few years ago there was a doc on Netflix about movies and TVS and how they were made. It was interesting in how many people with little or no physical experience in making TV or Movie, were put in charge of production companies. Most came from an accounting or business background
johnjm22
Pseudo Intellectual
- Aug 2, 2005
- 19,759
- 15,259
Lower Decks might be funny if you're 11 years old and have a vast knowledge of Star Trek references.
I can't imagine there's too many people that fit this criteria.
I can't imagine there's too many people that fit this criteria.
Blender
Registered User
- Dec 2, 2009
- 51,428
- 45,314
Was characters just saying a bunch of references in a row supposed to be funny? It definitely wasn't.
johnjm22
Pseudo Intellectual
- Aug 2, 2005
- 19,759
- 15,259
johnjm22
Pseudo Intellectual
- Aug 2, 2005
- 19,759
- 15,259
If anyone is interested, there was a recent episode of the Inglorious Treksperts (A Star Trek podcast) in which they discussed a ST movie script that never got made.
It's called Star Trek: The Beginning
This is the movie (actually a trilogy) that was scrapped by Paramount in favor of Abram's 2009 ST film. It's about Tiberius Chase, the formation of the Federation, and the Earth-Romulan war.
Erik Jendresen, who wrote Band of Brothers, penned the script. He's interviewed in the podcast and it's fascinating listening to him discuss it. He didn't want to work on it initially, he didn't like science fiction and didn't know much about Star Trek. But as he delved into it and began researching the franchise he fell in love with it. You can hear the passion in him when he talks about the script.
The script has many compelling plot points. Unlike ST: Picard it deals with xenophobia intelligently and in a way that makes sense. There's some humor in it too; a Vulcan watches some 20th century Earth science fiction.
The interesting thing is that Paramount still owns the script. We know they're trying to figure out what to do with Star Trek, maybe they'll take another look at it.
It's called Star Trek: The Beginning
This is the movie (actually a trilogy) that was scrapped by Paramount in favor of Abram's 2009 ST film. It's about Tiberius Chase, the formation of the Federation, and the Earth-Romulan war.
Erik Jendresen, who wrote Band of Brothers, penned the script. He's interviewed in the podcast and it's fascinating listening to him discuss it. He didn't want to work on it initially, he didn't like science fiction and didn't know much about Star Trek. But as he delved into it and began researching the franchise he fell in love with it. You can hear the passion in him when he talks about the script.
The script has many compelling plot points. Unlike ST: Picard it deals with xenophobia intelligently and in a way that makes sense. There's some humor in it too; a Vulcan watches some 20th century Earth science fiction.
The interesting thing is that Paramount still owns the script. We know they're trying to figure out what to do with Star Trek, maybe they'll take another look at it.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Series Talk: WCSF - Vancouver Canucks vs Edmonton Oilers- Latest: Angry Little Elf
-
-
Pre-Game Talk: Oilers vs. Canucks - time to make Vancouver rainier than usual- Latest: 29Beast97Mode
