The hit original animated series will arrive later this fall.

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

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
        114·
        3 months ago

        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+.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
            4·
            3 months ago

            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.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                2·
                3 months ago

                Well, again, I have no issue with the demographics thing in a specific show. I had no criticisms of Prodigy’s being a Star Trek show catered for a specific demographic. It’s that it’s looking like it will be the only show.

                And, I admit, I’m suspicious of what the executives will do with this project.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        72·
        3 months ago

        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.

          • stevecrox@kbin.run
            31·
            3 months ago

            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.

              • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
                2·
                3 months ago

                That’s… Not the point of a franchise. The point of a franchise is to continue a story or path in a world from perspectives beyond that of our originating characters. The only criteria of a franchise is that it must take place in the same world.

                That’s a bold claim to make, and it’s not unreasonable that someone would disagree with you on it. The point of an established universe is obviously the background that the universe brings. Otherwise you may as well just create an entirely new universe. And given that the background is the value of the universe, there is a limitation to how far you can reasonably expect to bend it before the interpretation of the universe shifts from “fresh” to “hostile”.

                For example, I’m not a particularly big fan of the Avatar movies, but they’re clearly pushing a naturalistic, shamanistic anti-corporate utopian vision. It’s not my cup of tea, but that is what the universe IS. If the next movie comes out and the Nav’i create planet-wide Walmart franchise and spend two hours boosting their stock price, it is absolutely reasonable to look at that at the VERY least as a wasteful use of the franchise, and it is not negativity for fans of the franchise to complain that it is not what they signed up for.

                Now, we can argue all day about where that line is, but to suggest there ISN’T one at all is extreme.

                  • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
                    1·
                    3 months ago

                    There’s more to an established universe than just the lore and plot. The tone, setting, and ethos of the world are every bit as important as the factual nature of what’s already happened. I’m not going to make a claim that the idea of a teen drama in the Star Trek universe is inconsistent with reality of the Star Trek franchise’s universe, but it is fair to say it is inconsistent with the established tone. I’m not making the claim that’s going to mean it’s bad, but it is completely fair and valid for existing fans to voice concern about that tonal shift. The tone is no less important to a series than the events that take place within them. If Luke’s hand being sliced off in Empire Strikes Back was played as a comic, silly moment, even though the events are consistent with the established universe, and in fact exactly the same, the nature of the scene and the franchise in which it happens are altered. These are not trivial concerns.