Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > TV Talk
Reload this Page >

Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

TV Talk Talk about Shows on TV

Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

Old 07-13-20, 11:24 PM
  #26  
DVD Talk Legend
 
milo bloom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Chicago suburbs
Posts: 16,994
Received 1,008 Likes on 763 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

Originally Posted by Giantrobo View Post
I hate to disagree with someone like Nimoy but I think the point that gets missed is that when you have a story that builds on what came before and uses those details to give the plot and characters extra depth and meaning, that makes those stories even better.

If you have a story you want to tell in a certain franchise universe but it would violate half the canon, does it really belong in that universe? What are you really trying to tell?
The following users liked this post:
Mike86 (07-13-20)
Old 07-13-20, 11:36 PM
  #27  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 40,008
Received 824 Likes on 529 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

Originally Posted by milo bloom View Post
I hate to disagree with someone like Nimoy but I think the point that gets missed is that when you have a story that builds on what came before and uses those details to give the plot and characters extra depth and meaning, that makes those stories even better.

If you have a story you want to tell in a certain franchise universe but it would violate half the canon, does it really belong in that universe? What are you really trying to tell?
I feel that quote is directed more at the ďThe Jefferies Tube clearly intersects with Stellar Cartography on Deck 18 so how could it provide access to the dilithium chamber on Deck 27?Ē crowd.
The following users liked this post:
Bandoman (07-15-20)
Old 07-13-20, 11:40 PM
  #28  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mike86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 23,440
Received 799 Likes on 653 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

Originally Posted by milo bloom View Post
I hate to disagree with someone like Nimoy but I think the point that gets missed is that when you have a story that builds on what came before and uses those details to give the plot and characters extra depth and meaning, that makes those stories even better.

If you have a story you want to tell in a certain franchise universe but it would violate half the canon, does it really belong in that universe? What are you really trying to tell?
Also, face it canon is going to matter especially in a franchise like Star Trek that largely attracted geeks like myself who care about that type of thing. I fully can admit to that. Itís a cop out of an answer to just say that it doesnít really matter.

I mean thereís a good argument to be made that the modern fanboy essentially was birthed from a combination of Star Trek and Star Wars fandom. So to say it just doesnít matter when you know it does to some people is kinda just ignorant.

It doesnít matter to creators and heads of studios who donít give a shit about the property beyond the dollar signs in their eyes. They just want to appeal to a wider audience so they throw things out the window or change things to fit the mold of what a different audience member wants, because not everyone has the history with the franchise or even gave a shit about it. Thatís about what it boils down to in my opinion.
Old 07-14-20, 07:28 AM
  #29  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,114
Received 78 Likes on 63 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

Originally Posted by Draven View Post
I feel that quote is directed more at the ďThe Jefferies Tube clearly intersects with Stellar Cartography on Deck 18 so how could it provide access to the dilithium chamber on Deck 27?Ē crowd.
Nah, he made that quote three days prior to the release of the first Star Trek cinematic reboot, which changed TOS canon significantly, and also of which he starred in and was heavily promoting at the time.

Last edited by brayzie; 07-14-20 at 08:20 AM.
Old 07-14-20, 08:39 AM
  #30  
Suspended
 
mspmms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN. Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends. We're so glad you could attend. Come inside! Come inside!
Posts: 17,144
Received 551 Likes on 380 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

After watching that trailer I really do not know what to make of it, gonna have to just wait and see.
Old 07-15-20, 11:35 AM
  #31  
DVD Talk Legend
 
milo bloom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Chicago suburbs
Posts: 16,994
Received 1,008 Likes on 763 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

Originally Posted by Mike86 View Post
Also, face it canon is going to matter especially in a franchise like Star Trek that largely attracted geeks like myself who care about that type of thing. I fully can admit to that. Itís a cop out of an answer to just say that it doesnít really matter.

I mean thereís a good argument to be made that the modern fanboy essentially was birthed from a combination of Star Trek and Star Wars fandom. So to say it just doesnít matter when you know it does to some people is kinda just ignorant.

It doesnít matter to creators and heads of studios who donít give a shit about the property beyond the dollar signs in their eyes. They just want to appeal to a wider audience so they throw things out the window or change things to fit the mold of what a different audience member wants, because not everyone has the history with the franchise or even gave a shit about it. Thatís about what it boils down to in my opinion.
I read something once that said the modern usage of the word/term "canon" to describe fictional works actually started with Sherlock Holmes. Even while Doyle was still releasing material, other authors started writing pastiches, fan fictions, and just plain unauthorized Holmes works, so the fans created the idea of the "Sherlock Holmes canon" to cover only the works by Doyle.

But SW and ST definitely gave it the modern surge and popularity to worry about the idea of canon. And I dislike the pushback by those who think we're overly obsessed with the little details. It's those details that make it interesting. Yes, yes, ST is about a better future and SW is about the power of mythology and spirituality to combat fascism, but it's supported by the details and those make it better.



Originally Posted by brayzie View Post
Nah, he made that quote three days prior to the release of the first Star Trek cinematic reboot, which changed TOS canon significantly, and also of which he starred in and was heavily promoting at the time.
See, I don't have a problem with the Kelvin-verse because it's clearly shown to be an alternate timeline, a concept that had existed in Trek for decades.

I do have a problem with Discovery, because it was originally meant to be a third, all new timeline but the execs thought the fans would want Prime timeline stories so they forced the showrunners to cram into the Prime universe and we had to deal with the disparity in technology and uniforms, and not to mention the Klingons. I mean, the idea of different Klingons absolutely has some wiggle room due to past portrayals, but the way it was done, plus calling that ship a D7 when it clearly was not, that's just thumbing their noses at us.
Season 2 went a long way towards fixing those problems, but they could have easily been done better from the get-go, and there would have been less drama in the fandom.

A counter example of how I think they did it right was when they created Captain Sisko for Deep Space Nine, they had him still grieving his dead wife. They could have had her death been caused by a dozen different things: moon shuttle accident, some exotic flu, whatever. But they tied into the Borg attack at Wolf 359 and that made it so much more meaningful. The fans immediately recognized it and it gave us a connection to Captain Picard/Locutus.

Attention to canon doesn't have to be knowing the number sequences of the Jeffries tubes, but it should include things like when they found B4 in Star Trek Nemesis, somebody should have said "hey, remember when we found that other lost brother of Data's and he tried to absolutely murder us multiple times? " That's what I'm more concerned about with canon.


Getting back on track - we've already had one animated series that had a few oddities but is still 99% accepted into canon. Lower Decks may be injecting a little more humor into Trek but that's not a bad thing. Despite what I just said about adhering to canon, I also believe Trek is big enough that there's room for all kinds of stories. They just need to try to follow some of the rules is all we're asking.


The following 2 users liked this post by milo bloom:
brayzie (07-15-20), tanman (08-19-20)
Old 07-15-20, 01:25 PM
  #32  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Josh-da-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Bible Belt
Posts: 39,291
Received 1,497 Likes on 1,079 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

Originally Posted by milo bloom View Post
I read something once that said the modern usage of the word/term "canon" to describe fictional works actually started with Sherlock Holmes. Even while Doyle was still releasing material, other authors started writing pastiches, fan fictions, and just plain unauthorized Holmes works, so the fans created the idea of the "Sherlock Holmes canon" to cover only the works by Doyle.

But SW and ST definitely gave it the modern surge and popularity to worry about the idea of canon. And I dislike the pushback by those who think we're overly obsessed with the little details. It's those details that make it interesting. Yes, yes, ST is about a better future and SW is about the power of mythology and spirituality to combat fascism, but it's supported by the details and those make it better.
Wholly agree here.

I think the idea here is for these things to have internal consistency. There are two terms that are relevant here: Canon and Continuity. Continuity means maintaining internal consistency. Canon means what is or isn't included in that continuity. Maintaining continuity means having internal consistency. If a character claims they don't have a sister in one episode, you can't introduce a sister in a later episode. Canon is what is included within that continuity. Are the novels canon? Is TAS canon? Is the Kelvinverse canon?

I also think it goes back to Tolkien to some extent. Tolkien created his Middle Earth legendarium with its own rich sense of history and mythology, and that's the gold standard that things like Star Trek and Star Wars (and, to a lesser extent, Doctor Who) should strive for. It's what the hardcore fans want. And I also think it's a good idea to sort of tie the hands of the writers behind their backs, and not let them do things that are too radical (RoboPicard, I'm looking at you!) even though a writer might think it's clever. I also think that the casual and new fans also appreciate the idea of internal consistency even they don't realize it's there.
Old 07-15-20, 02:14 PM
  #33  
DVD Talk Legend
 
milo bloom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Chicago suburbs
Posts: 16,994
Received 1,008 Likes on 763 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

Originally Posted by Josh-da-man View Post
Wholly agree here.

I think the idea here is for these things to have internal consistency. There are two terms that are relevant here: Canon and Continuity. Continuity means maintaining internal consistency. Canon means what is or isn't included in that continuity. Maintaining continuity means having internal consistency. If a character claims they don't have a sister in one episode, you can't introduce a sister in a later episode. Canon is what is included within that continuity. Are the novels canon? Is TAS canon? Is the Kelvinverse canon?

I also think it goes back to Tolkien to some extent. Tolkien created his Middle Earth legendarium with its own rich sense of history and mythology, and that's the gold standard that things like Star Trek and Star Wars (and, to a lesser extent, Doctor Who) should strive for. It's what the hardcore fans want. And I also think it's a good idea to sort of tie the hands of the writers behind their backs, and not let them do things that are too radical (RoboPicard, I'm looking at you!) even though a writer might think it's clever. I also think that the casual and new fans also appreciate the idea of internal consistency even they don't realize it's there.
Regarding that last bit I bolded: I think it makes for better storytelling when you have a writer that uses past events to inform future actions. Even if the viewer is coming in new, and isn't aware of previous episodes, they can often tell when there's material in the background that's being built upon. Didn't everybody say that Game of Thrones went bad when the showrunners didn't have the novels to fall back on? Even if they were making changes, they still had all that material to pick from and be inspired by.


That's what I hope LD can do - is pull from the 21 seasons and 4 movies of the TNG era and poke around the nooks and crannies of canon for things that might not get attention in a live action show, but are still there and worth exploring.
Old 07-16-20, 07:30 AM
  #34  
Enormous Genitals
 
Bandoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a small cottage on a cul de sac in the lower pits of hell.
Posts: 35,806
Received 388 Likes on 235 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

I agree re: continuity. Lower Decks could be good if it plays around the edges of past story lines. Who has to clean up after a Borg attack? What kind of complaints do the waitstaff have during a diplomatic dinner? Do the ensigns roll their eyes at Worf's Klingon machismo?
Old 07-16-20, 10:40 AM
  #35  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Giantrobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 61,116
Received 945 Likes on 635 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

I'm calling it now. Ya'll will be disappointed with "Lower Decks". The only question is will it be:

- "Picard Disappointment"
- "Discovery Disappointment"
- "Enterprise Disappointment"
The following 2 users liked this post by Giantrobo:
Bandoman (07-20-20), Why So Blu? (08-13-20)
Old 07-16-20, 06:08 PM
  #36  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Tom Banjo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Auburn, AL
Posts: 4,719
Received 258 Likes on 152 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

People could very well love this, though. Sure it might suck, but it could also end up feeling like The Orville with a splash of Rick & Morty. I don’t see myself caring about canon or continuity with this, and that might be key to embracing this without preconceptions.
The following 2 users liked this post by Tom Banjo:
Bandoman (07-20-20), Giantrobo (07-17-20)
Old 07-16-20, 06:14 PM
  #37  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mike86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 23,440
Received 799 Likes on 653 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

Originally Posted by Giantrobo View Post
I'm calling it now. Ya'll will be disappointed with "Lower Decks". The only question is will it be:

- "Picard Disappointment"
- "Discovery Disappointment"
- "Enterprise Disappointment"
Enterprise I actually enjoyed. Actually it may well be the last Star Trek series I liked. Itís only after Kurtzman brought his idiocy to the franchise that it tanked in quality. I just donít intend to watch Lower Decks. It looks absolutely unappealing to me.
Old 07-16-20, 07:07 PM
  #38  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Shannon Nutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 18,035
Received 217 Likes on 171 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

Originally Posted by Giantrobo View Post
I'm calling it now. Ya'll will be disappointed with "Lower Decks". The only question is will it be:

- "Picard Disappointment"
- "Discovery Disappointment"
- "Enterprise Disappointment"
Discovery got good in the second-half of the first season, and has been solid ever since. I never had a problem with Enterprise. Picard is a huge disappointment though. I'm just watching Lower Decks for fun...I don't/won't consider it canon any more than I ever considered Star Trek: The Animated Series canon - but that doesn't mean I'll think any less of it if it's well made.
Old 07-16-20, 07:33 PM
  #39  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mike86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 23,440
Received 799 Likes on 653 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

Star Trek: The Animated Series is alright and I donít have a problem considering it canon. Mainly because it has pretty much all the actors from TOS lending their voices to their respective characters. Itís a mixed bag as far as stories go. Also the animation isnít great because they used Filmation who were a notoriously cheap animation studio.
Old 07-17-20, 03:34 AM
  #40  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,114
Received 78 Likes on 63 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

Originally Posted by milo bloom View Post
See, I don't have a problem with the Kelvin-verse because it's clearly shown to be an alternate timeline, a concept that had existed in Trek for decades.
I'm kind of indifferent to it. Just pointing out that that's what Nimoy was referencing, not obscure knowledge of Jefferies tubes. If Paramount and JJ want to do some comic-nerd fanboy explanation to bring back the original crew it's whatever to me. I've only seen Star Trek Beyond and I thought it was so-so.

I do have a problem with Discovery, because it was originally meant to be a third, all new timeline but the execs thought the fans would want Prime timeline stories so they forced the showrunners to cram into the Prime universe and we had to deal with the disparity in technology and uniforms, and not to mention the Klingons.
I think doing multiple timelines works against Star Trek. It reminds me of DC Comics. I grew up on post-Crisis comics, so one Earth, that's it. Then Earth 2 came out by Morrison and Quitely. Great concept, great story. But then DC made that un-special by having multiple Earths, fifty-two I think, so that there's even multiple versions of Superman running around: Superman, Superman Prime, Barack Obama Superman, Kingdom Come Superman, Nazi Superman, Soviet Superman, Ultra Man, Superman 1,000,000, and so on. It felt like anything goes and nothing really matters.

I mean, the idea of different Klingons absolutely has some wiggle room due to past portrayals, but the way it was done, plus calling that ship a D7 when it clearly was not, that's just thumbing their noses at us.
I don't mind a Klingon redesign. I can pretend that this is how they always looked just like we did for TOS Klingons transitioning to TOS-movie Klingons. But everything about Discovery Klingons was kind of lame. Why not just use the JJ Abrams design? And then when the bald albino Klingons weren't well received, they gave they brought them closer to the traditional look and claimed it was because they shave their heads during times of war.

A counter example of how I think they did it right was when they created Captain Sisko for Deep Space Nine, they had him still grieving his dead wife. They could have had her death been caused by a dozen different things: moon shuttle accident, some exotic flu, whatever. But they tied into the Borg attack at Wolf 359 and that made it so much more meaningful. The fans immediately recognized it and it gave us a connection to Captain Picard/Locutus.
I agree. And it added weight to the battle at Wolf 359. Locutus and the Borg attack was only one episode and next week everything is back to normal. What!? Having it be a crucial part of Sisko's story was brilliant. I really liked that exchange between those two. I hated that it had to be Picard, but Sisko's anger made sense.

Attention to canon doesn't have to be knowing the number sequences of the Jeffries tubes, but it should include things like when they found B4 in Star Trek Nemesis, somebody should have said "hey, remember when we found that other lost brother of Data's and he tried to absolutely murder us multiple times? " That's what I'm more concerned about with canon.
Yeah. There's some inconsistencies that you can overlook. Klingons in the '60s looking like some regular dudes with brown make-up, and then in the 80s looking clearly alien with enlarged foreheads with ridges and fangs is fine with me. Sticking with the old look in the 1980s wouldn't have worked.

But no mention of Lore whatsoever in Nemesis is a pretty conspicuous omission. And they did it again in Picard when there's no mention whatsoever of Lal. Yeah, it was just one episode, but it was a pretty important episode, and they even reference her later in the series by having Data have a painting of her in his quarters.

Old 07-17-20, 04:30 PM
  #41  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Josh-da-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Bible Belt
Posts: 39,291
Received 1,497 Likes on 1,079 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

Originally Posted by Mike86 View Post
Star Trek: The Animated Series is alright and I don’t have a problem considering it canon. Mainly because it has pretty much all the actors from TOS lending their voices to their respective characters. It’s a mixed bag as far as stories go. Also the animation isn’t great because they used Filmation who were a notoriously cheap animation studio.
TOS itself was always a mixed bag, too.

Really, TOS isn't any worse than the third season, and might even be a bit better.

I don't have any problem with TAS being included in the official canon. Despite being a 70s Saturday morning cartoon, it comes off like a serious attempt at continuing the series, using both the actors and writers of the original.

It could have been much worse. They could have given Kirk a talking dog, and at one point, they considered including a bunch of kid sidekicks.








The following users liked this post:
John Pannozzi (08-09-20)
Old 07-17-20, 04:47 PM
  #42  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Josh-da-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Bible Belt
Posts: 39,291
Received 1,497 Likes on 1,079 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

Originally Posted by milo bloom View Post
See, I don't have a problem with the Kelvin-verse because it's clearly shown to be an alternate timeline, a concept that had existed in Trek for decades.
Yeah, I look at the Kelvinverse like Marvel Comics' Ultimate Universe.

And I think it was clever how they used Prime Spock to introduce us to it. It also gave Spock an interesting destiny, unlike Kirk.

It's just too bad we only got three mediocre movies out of it. We should have gotten at least a half a dozen really good movies. A new adaption of the Doomsday Machine. A really good Khan movie. A good Klingon movie. Kirk and Co. vs. the Borg. Go big with each movie.
The following users liked this post:
John Pannozzi (08-09-20)
Old 08-05-20, 02:07 PM
  #43  
DVD Talk God
 
Deftones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 79,022
Received 871 Likes on 609 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

Positive review of the 1st 2 episodes: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/...a-comic-twist/
Old 08-05-20, 04:00 PM
  #44  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Giantrobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 61,116
Received 945 Likes on 635 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)


The following 2 users liked this post by Giantrobo:
John Pannozzi (08-09-20), Wolf359 (08-06-20)
Old 08-05-20, 04:06 PM
  #45  
DVD Talk God
 
DJariya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: La Palma, CA
Posts: 71,311
Received 2,067 Likes on 1,517 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

Old 08-05-20, 05:24 PM
  #46  
DVD Talk Legend
 
milo bloom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Chicago suburbs
Posts: 16,994
Received 1,008 Likes on 763 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

Originally Posted by Deftones View Post
Positive review of the 1st 2 episodes: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/...a-comic-twist/

I think we're going to be pleasantly surprised. It may not be a masterpiece, but everything coming from from the creators' is truly from a place of love (and not like ENT's love letter to the fans in These Are The Voyages...).
Firstly, going back to the TNG era which, despite having 21 seasons and 4 movies set in it, is sorely under-explored. Second, they understand the idea of canon and what it means to fans.

I think this is going to be a breath of fresh air after Disco and Picard were just so damn grim all the time, we need something a little lighter ( to go with The Orville, of course).
Old 08-06-20, 11:14 AM
  #47  
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Somewhere in the boonies, MA
Posts: 10,147
Received 372 Likes on 291 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

Liked the first episode, not great but definitely has potential.

Best part was the last minute or so.
Old 08-06-20, 11:45 PM
  #48  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
ben12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Where I live?
Posts: 3,558
Received 61 Likes on 52 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

I tried. I couldn't get through that first scene. Gave me a headache.
Old 08-06-20, 11:49 PM
  #49  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Josh-da-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Bible Belt
Posts: 39,291
Received 1,497 Likes on 1,079 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

Is All Access going to put the first episode up on Youtube like they did Picard?

I'll probably just subscribe for a month in January and binge this and Disco season 3.
Old 08-07-20, 01:50 AM
  #50  
DVD Talk God
 
DJariya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: La Palma, CA
Posts: 71,311
Received 2,067 Likes on 1,517 Posts
re: Star Trek: Lower Decks (Now on Paramount +)

Originally Posted by Josh-da-man View Post
Is All Access going to put the first episode up on Youtube like they did Picard?

I'll probably just subscribe for a month in January and binge this and Disco season 3.
What and miss out on all the in depth analysis filled with hundreds of pages of discussion here at Star Trek central at DVD Talk with all these Star Trek historians?

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.