Lower Decks Trailer Analysis

[Tuskin38]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

This was an interview from what the show was announced IIRC. Perhaps things have changed, because there's been interviews from since then that have said other wise, that it would be a show for older people.

An interview with Mike himself a month or so back, he said they were aiming for a TV-14 rating.

And Kurtzman in this (from January 2019) says it skews slightly more adult.
https://trekmovie.com/2019/01/09/al...ngon-hair-and-taking-star-trek-to-new-places/

 

[BillJ]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I'd be interested in knowing when that interview took place? Things may have changed as they advanced deeper into making the show. From the trailer, there's nothing there that I wouldn't let my kid see. From "kids" he may mean the Rick & Morty crowd (tweens). Which is something I've allowed my son to watch since it started. Kids now are different than when we were kids.

Either way, they have another kids show coming on Nickelodeon.

 

[fireproof78]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Ah, well...that still doesn't answer the question as to what the show will be like. I shall reserve my judgment.

 

[Kpnuts]

Didn't someone survive a torpedo explosion simply by closing a door between two rooms?

A door that can only be locked on one side. It's terrible writing like that that just turns me off both shows. All three seasons to date start with promise but by the end are so convoluted and sloppy that it just becomes an over the top mess.

 

[Trekker4747]

A door that can only be locked on one side.

Well, a lot of doors work like that.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Well, a lot of doors work like that.

Very true. It would defeat the purpose of the lock a few cases.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I'd love for someone on the Enterprise to be on a streak. If they nail this strike, it's going to put them over the top in the score and they'll win the game. They're about deliver the killer strike, then... just then... the ship shakes a little, the bowling ball pivots, doesn't even knock over a single pin, and then over it we hear...

"RED ALERT! RED ALERT! All hands to battle-stations!!!"

It's a 300 game on the line or it's not worth it.

 

[NCC-73515]

That's their interpretation. Reality might be different

Perhaps your "reality" is just your interpretation.

I just don't think the D7 is that big of a flub.
But, its clearly a mileage will vary. Maybe it's all these little things that stack up that diminish enjoyment? Would that be a better way of putting it?

It's a bigger deal to people who like Klingon ship classes, or the D7 in particular. If your favorite ship would suddenly look completely different, you might find it more annoying than a ship you never cared about.

Also, if this is to be for children as well, why does it delve into porn territory with a fully naked man (yeah the other series featured naked people, but they usually hid the sensitive area, like Q appearing on the D or Phlox walking around the NX and having a table blocking his groin).

How is this fully naked without hiding the relevant area? Zoom in if you don't see the black bar

 

[fireproof78]

It's a bigger deal to people who like Klingon ship classes, or the D7 in particular. If your favorite ship would suddenly look completely different, you might find it more annoying than a ship you never cared about.

It really isn't. It's not like the ship I cared about poofed out of existence or something...

Also, a D7 is a meaningless classification that could signify any number of things. The fact that there were two different ships classified as a D7 doesn't somehow negate the other ship.

 

[NCC-73515]

It really isn't.

I think what some people need to understand here is that nobody's personal opinion, taste, or attitude towards details is universal or binding for anyone else.

 

[F. King Daniel]

If the brewery engine room, the turbolift funhouse etc etc ruin Trek for you, you're watching it wrong.

That's not personal opinion, that's facts.

 

[BillJ]

That's not personal opinion, that's facts.

No, that's the definition of personal opinion. Just because it doesn't ruin it for you, doesn't make you everyone.

 

[fireproof78]

I think what some people need to understand here is that nobody's personal opinion, taste, or attitude towards details is universal or binding for anyone else.

Never said that.

 

[shapeshifter]

How many times have we been thrown out of the story anyway when the TL has operated at speed of plot... that is, the ride time, no matter the destination, taking as long as required for occupants to have their conversation before arrival at destination. The funhouse, imo, simply hangs a funny lampshade on a known issue with writing those scenes.

 

[fireproof78]

How many times have we been thrown out of the story anyway when the TL has operated at speed of plot... that is, the ride time, no matter the destination, taking as long as required for occupants to have their conversation before arrival at destination. The funhouse, imo, simply hangs a funny lampshade on a known issue with writing those scenes.

I think so too. I think that it is interesting to see the gymnastics done to try and fit it in when it is flat out ridiculous.

I see no reason to treat that scene seriously and when it pops up I ignore it and move on with the episode. Bad CGI doesn't take away my enjoyment of characters I am engaged with. Mileage obviously varies, and I'm sorry that such a scene exists if only because it limits people's enjoyment.

 

[eschaton]

I think so too. I think that it is interesting to see the gymnastics done to try and fit it in when it is flat out ridiculous.

I see no reason to treat that scene seriously and when it pops up I ignore it and move on with the episode. Bad CGI doesn't take away my enjoyment of characters I am engaged with. Mileage obviously varies, and I'm sorry that such a scene exists if only because it limits people's enjoyment.

You cannot take what is shown onscreen as being the literal truth in Star Trek. If you did, you would have to presume the Universal Translator actually puts little holograms in front of the mouths of aliens so their lips match. Or that characters have extensive cosmetic surgery when recast. Or that ambient lighting changes for no particularly good reason during dramatic shots.

 

[fireproof78]

You cannot take what is shown onscreen as being the literal truth in Star Trek. If you did, you would have to presume the Universal Translator actually puts little holograms in front of the mouths of aliens so their lips match. Or that characters have extensive cosmetic surgery when recast. Or that ambient lighting changes for no particularly good reason during dramatic shots.

Or the little in jokes on TNG door signs, or the R2 in Into Darkness. There are some things that are just artists having fun. And it's OK to have fun with Star Trek and maybe, just maybe, not take it so seriously.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Perhaps your "reality" is just your interpretation.

It usually is.

 

[ananta]

So...I only just saw this trailer,don’t know how I managed to miss it.

Sadly I’m really not feeling this. The humour is that particular style that’s prevalent in American animation these days — I guess I’d describe it as kind of hyperactive, sassy and in your face. I much prefer an understated, subtler humour to my comedy. This just irritates me a bit. It also feels like they’re trying to make Star Trek something it’s not and never has been — hip.

If they put it on Netflix or Amazon Prime internationally I’ll definitely give it a watch. But no way I’m signing up to another service just for this.

 

[PPatters]

^ Now *this* is how you critique something!