Article Content
Doubling back for ‘Lower Decks’
A year ago, I announced I would not be reviewing Star Trek: Lower Decks. I had my reasons for that decision (like the endless commodification of the franchise into still more “product,” which I still believe is true), but the biggest reason was that I just didn’t have the will to take it on at the time.
I’m now announcing that I am reviewing Lower Decks, and I’m releasing all my reviews for season one instantly, Netflix style. You can go read them now. These are in my more condensed format — in the neighborhood of 500 words rather than 1,200 or 1,500 or more — that I’m thinking may be more of the norm for me for some shows moving forward.
I will say that I struggled with this series, especially early on. A lot of the problems I noticed in the original trailer a year ago were indeed problems that I experienced watching the show. To call this series “uneven” would be an understatement. The success rate was about 40 percent, and the lows were lower than the highs were high. That said, I found enough of value in this series to continue on with it. It’s a journey I took alone, as my wife declared the show unwatchably annoying within five minutes and tapped out. I understand her position, but I soldiered on, and while I did not love this, I found things in it to like, which you will see if you read the reviews.
Besides, I’m a completist running a website here, and with season two coming in August and nothing else happening in the Trek universe at the moment, I want to be up to date with what’s going on.
On the maintenance/administrative front, I have moved all the comments that those of you made over the past year on the general Lower Decks placeholder commenting page to the new Lower Decks review pages. Because I’m thoughtful like that. For the most part, they should align with the reviews they were meant to be posted on, but there may be some mistakes I made in moving them around. It’s the best I could do without sinking a ton of time into it.
Anyway, enjoy!
Like this site? Support it by buying Jammer a coffee.
Comments are closed on this post.
12 comments on this post
Mal
I happened to have the camera on when I read this post, so I am able to share my reaction video,
https://youtu.be/dw2K1B04lLo?t=166
smw
Hey, Jammer. Long-time reader (since first run B5), first-time commenter. I consider DIS a train wreck that I watch in horrified fascination, and PIC not much better, but I loved Lower Decks immediately. I enjoyed it as an antidote to the self-absorbed pretentiousness of postmodern Trek. It makes me very happy to see that you’ve not only given LD a fair chance, but also came around to taking the production seriously. I too have faith; they’re surprisingly good at what they do. LD isn’t canon to me, but it’s damn well the most *entertaining* Trek series of this century.
smw
Sorry, not B5 – I forgot you didn’t review it. Since first-run DS9. Those years. 🙂
Scott Fairbanks
Hooray! I’m so glad you went back to watch S1! I hope the show grows on you as we go along.
Henry Skey
Great to have you back, Jammer! 🙂
pussywillow
“Besides, I’m a completist running a website here…” So, where are those Star Trek: The Animated Series reviews then?
Paul C
Disliked DISappointing, and PICky about Picard. However Lower Decks was great fun with some fabulous knowing references. Some real laugh out loud moments. Thanks for reviewing this. May have to watch again and see if I agree with your reviews. Thanks again mate.
Cian Devane
Jammer, Any plans to review ST TAS? Thanks
Jammer
I’ve had intentions to review TAS for more than a decade and very nearly started it a few years ago, but the follow-through just didn’t happen. Eventually it will. It’s more a matter of when than if.
Al
As a completist does this means you’ll go back and review the original ST Animated series? 😉
Al
Never mind. Just read the comment above mine!
Jess
I’m more forgiving to Discovery than a lot of people above, though I agree that Lower Decks humour is over the top and cringey at times, which put me off a show I should enjoy a lot.