I think there's a pretty strong argument to be made that that's what the writers did by having the President name the new spacedock after Archer. Not everything has to be spelled out.
Maybe. Or maybe they named it after Archer due to his role in founding the Federation, and see him as a symbol of new beginnings and getting back to basics, since they still in a process of rebuilding?
This is false. We literally saw Michael looking up Spock's history in "Unification III," and we saw the entire crew learning about the history of the past couple hundred years throughout S3, including solving a huge mystery about the past that no one else had solved.
We saw her watch a video from the logs of a captain she did not personally know. She wasn’t scrolling through Starfleet Wikipedia to learn about Spock. Otherwise, she would have seen a section mentioned key relationships he had, which would likely list his parents, Pike and Kirk.
Do we see them reading the Space Wikipedia articles about everything that's happened from 2258 to 3188? No, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen off-screen. The show isn't about that, so the writers are not going to waste time showing them doing a thing the audience can already reasonably infer the characters were doing.
No, the show is not about that. But if I suddenly travelled 900 years into the future, I’d be trying to find out what happened to the people I knew of, and what major events occurred, what major inventions were created, and who are the most notable people over this span of time that I should be aware about. Even the TNG crew had to explain to Scotty the changes to engineering systems and showed him the holodeck even though there was only a 75 year gap between them.
I'm sorry, but that would not have been good writing. That would have been pedantic ST trivia-wank. Kirk did not actually "beat" the Kobayashi Maru, because he cheated and reprogrammed it. The President was correct in asserting that nobody has ever beaten the test, and the writers made a good decision in not invoking Kirk in dialogue.
It would be relevant if Burnham did not believe in the no-win scenario like Kirk. Before she left the 23rd century for the 32nd century, she was still his contemporary, even though they never met.
Two biological consciousnesses sharing a brain with one of them needing to be extracted without harming the other is a very, very different thing from a computer program on a holo-projector or a single consciousness being removed from a dying brain.
This just sounds like more trivia-wank to me. I wouldn't object to it being there in a short, light scene of exposition, but its absence doesn't harm the show either.
Again, there is a 900-year gap between the 23rd century and the 32nd century. It should be at least acknowledged that potential solutions do exist, including the mobile emitter and the golem, even if they do not know how exactly to put it all together at the very moment for Adira & Gray’s situation.
I think it works in this context -- the Federation has clearly not faced a planet-killer in centuries, and no one knows what caused this. I also think ST has done planet-killers pretty often in its history -- the Doomsday Machine? the Crystalline Entity? -- without getting shit about it before.
Actually, we don’t know if the Federation never faced a planet killer in centuries. There’s quite a gap between the 24th century and the 32nd. And just because the Federation was focused on time travel in between those centuries does not mean they did not encounter anymore planet killers.
Plus, the Burn may have made the planet killers look like small potatoes in comparison, and something to be put on the backburner until further notice.
[/QUOTE]Why would it hold more meaning? None of the characters we see this season are Klingon. President Rallik has Cardassian and Bajoran heritage, but we don't know if she's attached to either planet. Book is the character we've spent the most time with between him and Rallik, and Kwejian was his home and a planet we've spent time on in this show. [/QUOTE]
The destruction of Qonos would hold meaning to the crew of Discovery considering that they fought war with the Klingons in S1. Most, if not all of the crew, grew up learning that the Klingons were adversaries to the Federation in the 23rd century.
And all three planets have been more established in the lore that Kwejian, which we were still getting to learn. If one of those planets were lost, it would mean something to viewers who watched the older series.
Again: one scene. This is an incredibly reductive way to describe one scene of nervousness.
Adira – who never behaved like Tilly in S3 around the Discovery crew – is suddenly nervous being around the same people she met in the previous season and has work with for months. Yes, I’m going to be wondering why Adira is acting out of character. And yes, I do still realize that Adira is a teenager
Honestly if you look at the history of genre television, it seems pretty clear that the concept of having a single over-arching conflict and villain for each season goes back to Joss Whedon's work on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. That practice influenced a huge number of subsequent shows, including Russell T. Davies and his successors on Doctor Who, and probably the producers of ENT S3 yes. But it's become extremely common on a lot of genre TV shows.
Yes, its common for lots of shows. But Discovery tends to take influence from other Trek series. This includes Enterprise. And ENT S3 arc was integral in showing how the crew went from the naivete and optimism displayed in S1-2 with the more self-assured confidence in S4. Essentially, the crew matured over 4 seasons and the behaviours from S1-2 were removed from the crew altogether. No more impulsive reactions to alien customs, no more issues living in small quarters, no more events like A Night in Sickbay.
I’m not sure if the same can be said for the Discovery crew. Adira behaving like Tilly, for example. Would not surprise me if Burnham has to deal with a member of her crew firing the first shot and starts a new war before the season was over. Or if someone replaces Stamets as the new jerk onboard. Certain archetypes seem to remain on the crew, even if the main characters themselves change. Which shows that DIS is formulaic now.
We're one episode in. Don't you think it's a little premature to say S4's arc isn't working?
If it was the conclusion to a two-parter yes. But I see it as an indication as to where the series will go. And what I saw was, the growth was there for a lot of characters, but it still holding on to shallowness of S1 in some respects.
