Fone Bone
Matt Zimmer
Star Trek: Lower Decks "Grounded"
That TV-MA rating scared the poo outta me, but like all ratings, it turns out to have been utterly bogus. The show is still bleeping delightful. As it should be.
There were a HELL of a lot of Star Trek references here, even for this show. The most obvious ones were the eerily accurate callbacks to First Contact, but we also got a ton of little stuff like Sisko's Restaurant, a Sonny Clemonds concert, and my favorite was the kid who solved Fermat's Last Theorem, which has not only been solved more than once in the franchise, but it was actually solved centuries earlier in real life, WHILE DS9 was still on the air. One of Trek's more embarrassing real-life goofs and that joke is rubbing the franchise's nose in it.
I'll tell you something odd about the show, and really it might be considered a failing. But all of the tourist traps and recognizable spots on Earth are all from previous Star Trek episodes and movies. I would not begrudge the series for coming up for its own unique stamps of future Earth. Although the show pointing out there is no reason for the San Francisco Bridge to still exist in a world without cars is getting there.
I'll tell you why this is a good Star Trek show. And why it's a good modern Star Trek show. The unpredictable ending is that you should believe in the system. And while that has always been true of the first five Star Trek series, every Kurtzman era show is very committed to showing why certain aspects of Starfleet are and always have been flawed. And frankly, I like that about them, and think it's long overdue. It's also very much in the vein of how modern television chooses to tell stories, and the kinds of controversies it seeks out. A lot of modern drama has to do with characters looking inwards on themselves and their missions and finding both lacking. Star Trek purists will scoff, but I find it necessary for a modern show.
And this episode shocks us all by exclusively appealing to the purists. The ones who don't really have a leg to stand on when defending Gene Roddenberry's militarism and authoritarianism in his shows. You guys? Nailed it here. And it's the fact the franchise is raising questions elsewhere which is why this specific "not safe for TV" moral is refreshing instead of alarming and obnoxious. But yeah, it's a great twist that things are gonna work out because they are good guys and good guys always win. It's Star Trek. That's actually been its deal the entire time, whether Kurtzman admits it or not.
James Cromwell. Nice. The thing I love about this show is that is bring back classic actors to voice their characters. Most cartoons of different franchises wouldn't bother. Star Trek: Lower Decks does because it cares, and because the producers are actual fans.
Great first episode back. The anticlimax is the exact point of Star Trek. Predictability in that regard was always one of Star Trek's selling points, so props to the show for touting it in the modern era for once. ****1/2.
That TV-MA rating scared the poo outta me, but like all ratings, it turns out to have been utterly bogus. The show is still bleeping delightful. As it should be.
There were a HELL of a lot of Star Trek references here, even for this show. The most obvious ones were the eerily accurate callbacks to First Contact, but we also got a ton of little stuff like Sisko's Restaurant, a Sonny Clemonds concert, and my favorite was the kid who solved Fermat's Last Theorem, which has not only been solved more than once in the franchise, but it was actually solved centuries earlier in real life, WHILE DS9 was still on the air. One of Trek's more embarrassing real-life goofs and that joke is rubbing the franchise's nose in it.
I'll tell you something odd about the show, and really it might be considered a failing. But all of the tourist traps and recognizable spots on Earth are all from previous Star Trek episodes and movies. I would not begrudge the series for coming up for its own unique stamps of future Earth. Although the show pointing out there is no reason for the San Francisco Bridge to still exist in a world without cars is getting there.
I'll tell you why this is a good Star Trek show. And why it's a good modern Star Trek show. The unpredictable ending is that you should believe in the system. And while that has always been true of the first five Star Trek series, every Kurtzman era show is very committed to showing why certain aspects of Starfleet are and always have been flawed. And frankly, I like that about them, and think it's long overdue. It's also very much in the vein of how modern television chooses to tell stories, and the kinds of controversies it seeks out. A lot of modern drama has to do with characters looking inwards on themselves and their missions and finding both lacking. Star Trek purists will scoff, but I find it necessary for a modern show.
And this episode shocks us all by exclusively appealing to the purists. The ones who don't really have a leg to stand on when defending Gene Roddenberry's militarism and authoritarianism in his shows. You guys? Nailed it here. And it's the fact the franchise is raising questions elsewhere which is why this specific "not safe for TV" moral is refreshing instead of alarming and obnoxious. But yeah, it's a great twist that things are gonna work out because they are good guys and good guys always win. It's Star Trek. That's actually been its deal the entire time, whether Kurtzman admits it or not.
James Cromwell. Nice. The thing I love about this show is that is bring back classic actors to voice their characters. Most cartoons of different franchises wouldn't bother. Star Trek: Lower Decks does because it cares, and because the producers are actual fans.
Great first episode back. The anticlimax is the exact point of Star Trek. Predictability in that regard was always one of Star Trek's selling points, so props to the show for touting it in the modern era for once. ****1/2.