• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

How does Lower Decks compare to Star Trek the Animated Series?

I guess I was writing that with the OP in mind -- specifically how he made the comparison between TAS and Lower Decks simply because both are animated. I think the animated aspect of those shows is a superficial similarity that says nothing about the overall tone of them, which is a more salient point of comparison.
Completely agree. And illustrates just how much this comparison game is rather nonsensical. It insists on taking two things and mashing them together, while ignoring pretty much every other factor that makes them distinct entities.
 
It's not just an animation problem. I remember that when I saw RoboCop 2 in the theater, two or three mothers had brought their very young children into what was clearly labeled as an R-rated movie.
 
Yeah, I've read similar stories with things like Friday the 13th and other similar films that are rated R but people taking younger children to it.
 
I've literally had conversations on this board with people who said "If only there were some system that would let us know in advance if a TV show or movie wasn't suitable for kids," because they're somehow unaware that such a system already exists. I mean, they've heard of PG and R ratings and such, but they've apparently never noticed that every poster and commercial and video case and so on contains a graphic going into detail about what specific content earned the film its rating.
 
Oddly, Lower Decks is more comparable to Brooklyn Nine-Nine (ensemble comedy with irreverent humor) than it is TAS -- and I don't mean that to necessarily be a bad thing.

Yeah, that was exactly my point. With these four series -- TAS, LD, Dragnet 1967, and Brooklyn Nine-Nine -- you've got two axes: drama/comedy; animated/live action. Two shows can both be live action but can be totally different on the other axis; two shows can both be animated and the same applies. Dragnet 1967 may be live action and Star Trek: The Animated Series animated, but they're both very earnest workplace dramas.* Brooklyn Nine-Nine may be live-action and Star Trek: Lower Decks animated, but they're both absurdist workplace situation comedies. Expecting Star Trek: The Animated Series to be like Star Trek: Lower Decks just because they're both animated shows centered around Starfleet officers makes about as much sense as expecting Dragnet 1967 to be like Brooklyn Nine-Nine just because they're both live-action shows centered around cops: Medium (Live action vs. animated), format (workplace procedural), and genre (comedy vs drama) are all separate elements.

*To modern audiences, both ST:TAS and D67 may register as being funny because of how earnest they are in a form of unintentional camp, but that's a result of cultural changes since the shows were made, not a reflection of the original artistic intentions of the creators.

Lower Decks is B99 with space explorers instead of cops. The main protagonist in both shows is mischievously cheeky, often juvenile, and has been known to flaunt authority -- yet is also very capable at what they do.

That's an interesting point I hadn't considered -- Boimler and Mariner do draw upon some of the same archetypes as Peralta and Santiago. We could probably also say that Rosa draws upon some of the same archetype as the Bajoran security officer and Caitian CMO (I can't remember their names), Terry draws upon some of the same archetypes as Rutherford (affable company man), and Holtz draws upon some of the same archetypes as the captain (frustrated hyper-competent leader). Tendi draws a little bit on Amy's archetype too (earnest, competent subordinate who wants superiors' approval). The parallels aren't a perfect match, but I think it speaks to the way most sitcoms (and arguably most comedies in general) draw upon archetypes and character stocks that date back to things like the comedia del'arte.
 
I've literally had conversations on this board with people who said "If only there were some system that would let us know in advance if a TV show or movie wasn't suitable for kids," because they're somehow unaware that such a system already exists. I mean, they've heard of PG and R ratings and such, but they've apparently never noticed that every poster and commercial and video case and so on contains a graphic going into detail about what specific content earned the film its rating.

Facebook recently reminded me that it was the two-year anniversary of a customer at the cinema where I used to be a manager asking us not to put ice in her glass because she didn't want it to dilute her water.

To be very clear, she was asked for clarification, and she did mean precisely that: She was concerned that ice would dilute her water,

:shrug:
 
Facebook recently reminded me that it was the two-year anniversary of a customer at the cinema where I used to be a manager asking us not to put ice in her glass because she didn't want it to dilute her water.

To be very clear, she was asked for clarification, and she did mean precisely that: She was concerned that ice would dilute her water,

:shrug:
This is why I can't work in a job that deals with customers. When I used to work in retail, I'd tell them what I think. Didn't go over well.

"But you were a moderator! You had to keep your thoughts about certain things to yourself in that case too!" Yeah. But I also wasn't directly responding to a triple-digit number of posters individually and face-to-face every day, like I did with customers at wherever I was working in high school or college, where I went through seven jobs in as many years. So not the same thing. ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sci
This is why I can't work in a job that deals with customers. When I used to work in retail, I'd tell them what I think. Didn't go over well.

I've worked internet tech support, and been told by a customer after asking them to reset the modem "That box with the blinking lights? I screwed it to the outside of my house. I'll need a ladder.". I've worked cell phone support and gotten a call from a customer complaining that they get a busy signal when they try to call themselves on their phone.
 
I've literally had conversations on this board with people who said "If only there were some system that would let us know in advance if a TV show or movie wasn't suitable for kids," because they're somehow unaware that such a system already exists. I mean, they've heard of PG and R ratings and such, but they've apparently never noticed that every poster and commercial and video case and so on contains a graphic going into detail about what specific content earned the film its rating.
The bad thing NOW is the Internet allows them to go on social media and blame everyone but themselves........which is where the true fault lies.
 
The two shows are totally different. The only things the have in common is that they arw both Star Trek & they are both cartoons.

TAS had Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Scotty, & Sulu. TOS S4 in cartoon, half hour format. Finishing the 5 year mission.

LD is irreverent, adult humor cartoon based (loosely) off the idea in a namesake TNG episode: stories about characters NOT on the bridge.
 
I would say about 12 of the 22 TAS episodes are very good, and with a really small sample size, LDS hasn't even approached that, so for now at least, it's not very comparable in quality.

RAMA
 
The animation of Lower Decks is clearly better, but that was to be expected. They should tone down the hyperactivity a bit in LD and make it a little more serious, that would be a lot more interesting. So far it feels like a mess and the "humor" doesn't work for me at all, I haven't even chuckled once! It only works for the TNG nostalgia factor, and that won't be enough in the long run.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top