I loved it when the Admiral realized that he has been living the Dark Ages and has lost the hope that Starfleet symbolizes to civilizations. The tone shift in his voice showed a kind of mini reflection on that point.
Yet its totali undermined by getting told by crew of oudated ship whit education level equal to current technologi bordering uneducated That they some how know better just because they comming from EASI TIME ?? seriousli they know shit federation masive organization of many many many worlds far outreaching TNG ..... didnt solve it BUT SOME HOW TOTALI UNEDUCATED OUTDATED CREW manage to find source in days...... This geting me facepalming so hard!!!! Making this SO RIDICULOU AND UNREALISTIC SITUATION..... Everybody whud be looking thrue that data !! Every single plantet every single advanced civilization. YET FREKING TNG ERA CREW SOME HOW FIGURE IT OUT CAUSE THEY ARE SPECIAL...:: Yea this is how whud it go in real time. YOU ARE UNEDUCATED. You lack any knowledge of current technologi. You have NO IDEA of curent social and politic status of galaxi. Yet you are standing here and trying to lecture me ? That whud be realistic....
I loved Saru's speech, it really feels like we have been trapped in a increasingly dark age since the 70's, but when the current crisis (and its offshoot) crisis is over, we will be pushed into a new Golden Age.
I liked the fact that Vance didn't follow the usual trope of being an evil admiral. He was gruff and stand offish at first but ended up warming up and in a way becoming part of the Discovery crew in some respect.
@@jordanreed3675 Yeah star trek doesn't have a good history with Admirals, lots of them were corrupt or just seemed dumb and or incompetent. She wasn't a bad person or anything. I just don't think it was a good portrayal of an admiral. In season 1 she had a nervous breakdown and left her crew without orders when she seen the Klingons took over a station. She also didn't have what it took to fight the Klingons, the emperor had to step in. In season 2 she let entire starfleet divisions go unattended. In both seasons her actions are guided by her subordinates. Another example is Admiral Paris, he was a good guy but I don't think it was a good portrayal of an Admiral either, he didn't look or act competent enough for that station. Like he let Barclay undermine his position and seemed completely aloof without his staff. Honestly I think some of the better portrayals came from the corrupted ones. For example Admiral Layton was pretty awesome, so was Admiral Marcus. Both were extremely competent and demanded respect. Their fault was that they lost their way and were corrupted into thinking they knew better then the federation council and decided to take matters into their own hands. There were some good ones as well. Like Admiral Ross, he knew what was going on all branches of starfleet and had even his fingers in foreign affairs all while managing an interstellar war. Admiral Forest was pretty good for his time to, however starfleet was tiny at the time. I really liked Admiral Pike as well but we didn't see much of him in that position. Same goes for Picard. To many bad Admirals to name, I hope Vance sticks around and doesn't do a 180, so far he's pretty awesome.
You and me both. But so far we do not have a big bad so it’s highly likely that the Federation went the way of Rome. Giving up its principles for the sake of preservation.
When I try to think back to legitimately good Admirals, the only name that seems to come to mind is Admiral Ross from DS9. Though he had the advantage to be a recurring character that gave a damn.
The Burn makes very little sense in that Starfleet was STILL using warp and dilithium 1000 years into the future, when in Janeway and Picard's time, Starfleet was on the verge of understanding how to build transwarp and quantum slipstream drives. Quantum slipstream, in particular, should have worked even during the Burn.
"Let me help." A hundred years or so from now, I believe, a famous novelist will write a classic using that theme. He'll recommend those three words even over "I love you."
Indeed! And that was from the episode " The City on the edge of Forever!" From classic Star Trek! And also 920 years after events in Season 3 of Discovery! The Guardian didn't appreciate being misused in the 30th Century by the factions in the Temporal Cold War.
I'm the admiral, I'm locking down Discovery, replicating that spore drive, and analyzing the Sphere data. No more important tasks. The only ship capable of instantaneous travel anywhere in the universe, and you're out of dilithium? Nope. Discovery isn't leaving dock until there are at least two other spore drive ships.
Agreed, the Discovery could be revolutionary to the Federation at this point. The fact that he (the admiral) dont see at first hand make me want to bash my head againts a wall!!!
Agreed. At least take complete scans of the ship spore drive, copy spore drive data, replicate what can be replicated, update and improve the next-gen spore drive. Should take about a week given the more advanced tech of the 32nd century! You don't let go of a "godsent gift" like the USS Discovery until you could have at least a couple of new successful spore drives installed in other starships!!
Try to remember that they don't have as many ships to spare as Starfleet did in the past. That they are over-extended is made very clear. So the fact that a working prototype of the spore drive is already installed in an old Starfleet ship is actually a benefit, because it means that they don't have to refit a newer ship in order to field test the drive. Even better, the spore drive's inventor Stamets is one of the Discovery crew, along with Tilly, Reno and other personnel who help maintain and operate the drive. Future!Starfleet doesn't need to waste time reverse-engineering anything. The Discovery crew can *tell* them everything that they need to know and just transfer over the schematics and all other data they've amassed on the drive and the mycelial network so far. That's why Admiral Vance doesn't seem so stressed over this. Getting the how-to is the easy part. Adapting it to 32nd century technology will probably take up the bulk of the effort and Discovery's presence or absence during the process doesn't affect that.
@@nomnom_plays - The Eugenics Wars happened twelve centuries earlier on a planet that isn't even a Federation member anymore. Frankly, Future!Starfleet is under no obligation to honor what is now an ancient ban on genetic engineering. Especially if they can justify a specific enhancement, which they can here.
The best part about this entire scene is that it really does Hammer home that this is the lowest of federation has ever been. Even lower than earlier in season 1 when you see that they almost lost the federation/Klingon war or during the Dominion war.
To credit the spark of the Renaissance on the shoulders of a painter is exactly what an art history major says in intellectual conversation. Oh man, accuracy in art! That's more important than the debit/credit accounting system, religious reformation, philosophical, and engineering. Who tf is Giotto compared to Leonardo DaVinci and the likes.
Discovery should get retrofitted with more advanced technology and have its spore drive schematics copied. It is currently the only warp capable ship and it would do a lot more good by sharing its abilities with the Federation and getting some upgrades.
Thats like trying to fit an iPhone 4 with the camera from the iPhone 12. Technology from two different times is completely different and requires more than a simply retrofit. You need to completely rebuild the entire device.
Technically so, but there's also the fact that Dilithium is a limited commodity. With such a low supply chain, that definitely caps the distance at which a Starfleet Ship can travel without getting stranded.@@firstname9954
Hey, we have a drive based on captured intelligent life forms that we abuse, but we're too stupid to figure out how it really works so only one ship uses it.
they figured out how it works, they built it! Then they stopped using it because a) it required a living organic being to act as an interface (which is VERY much not something they liked) and b) it turned out to be damaging to the mycelial network because they were using it so frequently.
It seems like a colossal waste of resources. No guard rails either for the initial part so very accident prone until the rest fills out. If that's a walkway then why would they need the empty space? In fact, extra wasted space seems like a recurring theme way more than any other ST series.
I’m wondering if they’re insinuating Cardassia is a Federation world. In the next episode after this they have a similar screen setup and the planets in yellow are Federation planets on heightened state of yellow alert (I think). Which would make sense as Bajorans are implied to be bad guys in this season too. It would be very ironic. Cardassia spent years trying to destroy the Federation and Bajor spent years trying to join. Seems the shoe is on the other foot now. Weyoun’s words while on Cardassia about Earth as key to destroying the Federation and now Earth isn’t a member and Cardassia is...ironic too
@@Bitchslapper316 Cardassia and the Klingons might have joined the Federation but my guess is they left after the Burn like Andoria, Ni'Var, and Earth.
"Welcome to the future. We have bridges that mold themselves out of liquid metal so that they form themselves across thin air as you walk over them." ".....Why?"
I watched all 3 seasons. Didnt hate it as much as others did. Actually found it not too bad. But this Burnham with her attitude kind of annoyed me the whole time
She is the only one fighting to keep the crew. That captain does protect the crew. She wasn't ready, and she needed to find footing in starfleet again . She has one foot out the door. Sau doesn't see it.
I'm wondering is discovered can still travel around at warp speeds without spore drive or where their dilithium crystals to somehow affected once they got there
Oh! I had forgotten that! But I remember that point of a lack of depth. I saw it in 2019. And changed my own direction. The three point perspective. I shall have to look it up!
"Dark ages" was a term coined by Greco-Roman fanboys in Italy who preferred the works of the ancient world over those made during the Medieval age it had almost nothing to do with the actual reality surrounding the level of education/"enlightenment" in Europe.
I miss Trek when it was still Trek. But this scene wasn't bad. I guess this actor playing the admiral isn't interested in playing with Mummy's with Brandon Fraser anymore.
You really need to go back and study history better. Western Europe did not have modern nation-states until very late in the Middle-Ages. For a long time, the Germanic practice of partible inheritance meant that even *kingdoms* could be divided up between multiple heirs during the early-Middle Ages, and ruling brothers often fought wars over their inheritance. We had art and science in 1776. But *very* few people would consider regressing socially and technologically to how things were in those days to be anything less than catastrophic!
@@daniels7907 "Western Europe did not have modern nation-states until very late in the Middle-Ages" But they were remarkably politically stable. As for War, in Medieval Europe wars were actually rare, and when they were fought, they were usually a response to non-Christian aggression, like vikings or 700 year reconquest of Spain.
I see uncertainty and I saw no depth. But I am distinctly determined to get some certainty and depth back into ALL of our lives in Britain and God willing, elsewhere! Thankfully Saru's perspective of Giotto will bring about that into context, as well! I am willing and determined to do what I can to bring about this! A note to the Prime Minister of Britain. I WON'T be giving up on the vaccine against Covid-19, my fire at you! Continues!
Great sentiment... But the writers needed to not push the scene. Saru made a great point using history. Then Burnham starts talking about mushrooms and organisms and sphere data... And when faced with the prospect of people not coping with their trauma, rationalizes doing nothing about it. Citing she's prepared to put her faith in a pilot who might be going mad... Faith in someone is good. But ignoring evidence is not good when that evidence is saying someone needs more help than faith they will be okay in spite of trauma that is medically quantifiable. The least they could have done is take on people from the new era aboard Discovery.
No, no to everything they're trying to do. Every one of them needs to be placed on immediate leave and given extensive psychological evaluation and emotional support. All the while that ship should be heavily studied and it's Spore Drive, along with all Sphere Data, disseminated to the fleet
I have bounced around with Discovery. It has it moments, and it has things I'm not a fan of. The acting is good for the most part, and the writing goes from epic to shitty. I did like seeing more of the Terran Empire, which is probably the only reason I have watched any of it. I'd like a show set entirely in the mirror universe. I have watched some of the new season.... and you're right... hahaha. Never thought of that comparison, but this storyline is very close to Captain Dillion Hunt's desire to rebuild the Commonwealth. Damn, now I want to watch Andromeda. Andromeda too had its moments of greatness and shittyness, but overall I liked it.
@@RamblingZhenas soon as I saw the trailer for this season, I began thinking of Andromeda. I have nothing against the actors. They are there to proform their rolls. It is writers, directors and the show runners who are to blame. STD is too busy trying to like something else, it can not be star trek. Like Picard it to busy trying to force the writers political message, its got no time for story telling! It's not star trek, it look almost like it and CBS own it so can slap the name on whatever! But it lack the heart, soul and intelligence to star trek, you watch any series from the golden age of star trek, you care about the characters. That why it is a joy in the enterprise 2 parter "in a mirror, darkly" to see Archer, Reed, Dr phlox, Hosti so on being so over the top, evil, we know the characters. STD has one character Michael with a massive messiah complex and a crew of cardboard stand in with *the power of math" or "fuck yer!" written on them! It all so depressing! Sorry for going on but star trek did have meaning. Now it all lost.
@@catwhowalksbyhimself Andromeda was a concept Gene Roddenberry's created, but it is kind of irrelevant. Just because Gene created a series be it star trek or any other science fiction, does not mean Alex Kurtzman can strip mine it for easy story ideas. As Alex Kurtzman has strip mine Andromeda for idea. He and the writers should be doing a far better job with the materials, than the glossy, messy, nonsense of STD. Star Trek inspired children to be Astronauts! Hell Nasa name the test shuttle Enterprise. Who and what will STD inspire? STD, Picard and Lower decks are thin shadows of what star trek should and could be. We are all poorer for that.
I think saru is a good captain. Holyshit benham being humble... you go where I say and do what I say.. Untill episode6, one has wonder does she have the adirmals permission to rescue Booker????? Iam gessing NO!!
Yes we know, we know. the idea of the Renaissance and the 'Dark Ages' are dramatically oversimplified here. We get it! It is being used as a tool to move the story in a certain direction. Don't get too caught up in the details. The show doesn't have time to talk about what really happened.
I never learned reanasance in my school. So i was in the dark. I figured giotto was a painter that somehow found a way to look at life in 3 points perspective. Past, present and the future. To look back at what have been learned, to focus on what happening at this point. And to never forget where our goal is in the future. Colour me surprized and dissapointed it was just a drawing method to represent depth and entirety.
Uhm, the Dark Ages ended and was followed by the Middle Ages in Europe prior to the Renaissance. Meanwhile the rest of the world was prospering /"looking up" with the Byzantine empire being the only European entity that didn't collapse.
Considering that people were being tried and executed for heresy for suggesting that earth isn't the center of the universe as late as the 16th century, and that the 'Age of Discoery' didn't begin until the beginning of the 1500s, Saru's analogy was correct and very Apt. We may of been 'looking up' as you put it before Giotto in 1337, but we never did anything about it, at least not for at least 250 years.
@@aceman67 it was relatively well known by the fall of the Western Roman empire that the Ptolemaic Model wasn't as accurate as believed ;) Look into the "sozein ta phenomena" philosophical statement ^^
Huge history mistake there. The period right before Renaissance wasn't called Dark Ages, and Dark Ages doesn't mean what passes as common knowledge. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Middle_Ages
Agreed. There was plenty of civilisation in the Dark Ages. I always however see it as the time of Alfred and the Danes. That period of a fight for progress and knowledge vs all out pillage.
@@RichardTLDR But even pillaging wasn't that huge, since there was no great army anymore each territory only had a small amount of men to spare for fighting so it was mostly small attacks and skirmishes
Try to keep it in perspective. There is a bit of cultural snobbery in academic circles in play here. To the people who lived through the fall of the Western Roman Empire, this was nothing short of cataclysmic! They went from a single nation that spanned much of their known world to isolated kingdoms ruled by warlords! Rule of law, a common military, civic infrastructure and much, much more were all lost to the people of Western Europe. Imagine if you took the U.S., as it exists in 2020, and busted it back to where it was, culturally and technologically, in 1720. There are *very* few non-Amish people who would consider that to be anything less than apocalyptic!
The guy talking about history in the story here is an alien from another world, over 2000 years in the future after the start of the Middle Ages. It would be really unrealistic if he cited his story with 100% historical accuracy. I could be really pedantic and say they renamed the Middle Ages period completely in the future after additional divisions were added after the Modern period. And that one, because technically it would be no longer be “modern”.
@@Omnipotent-Q - Again, perspective plays a big role here as well. The circumstances after the fall of the western Roman Empire are very similar what the Federation faces in the present. Worlds that were once a part of the Federation are now independent, isolated and in many cases under threat from criminals, raiders and warlords. Interstellar trade has been reduced to small scale. Many places are entirely lawless. We have already been *shown* this. So Saru's analog *is* accurate in that regard, even if he's over-simplifying how the end to this rough time came about. Also, what Saru, a Kelpian, knows about the Middle Ages he would have learned from attending Starfleet Academy.
Ah yes the european "dark age" that was named that because a guy was salty about rome falling, while the rest of the world was carrying on just fine. Truly earth's darkest times /s
@@cactash5761 - So you would be totally cool is the U.S. were suddenly busted back to 1920 technology? How about 1820 or 1720? Or if suddenly you went from a centralized government based on Rule of Law to being subject to the whims some random warlord and his thugs, who might be replaced by a different warlord and thugs at any time?
@@daniels7907 The fall of rome didn't suddenly destroy all roman tech, though. A lot of it fell to ruin and wear and tear over years and decades, or even centuries, and was then replaced by local tech to do the same purpose, if not the same standard. But even then not every part of the empire was fully up to the most modern tech anyways, and the most advanced parts had the most advanced knowledge to go along with it. It wasn't any sort of apocalypse or anything. Plus, 1) the roman law really wasn't all that great for everyone- for a lot of people rome was the equivalent of a warlord and thugs, and even then roman law wasn't able to be imposed so strictly on every corner of the empire and 2) after the fall, as the army, territories and leaders split into smaller forces, there wasn't enough seperate manpower for anyone to truly become a warlord, as they only had a small group of men. Most commonly either the existing local power was simply more fully in charge or enough people wanted them out to oust them. It wasn't mad max or anything, for the vast majority of people it was life as normal with a little more complicated government and maybe some more fights but not full out war and warlords.
@@cactash5761 - Wrong on both counts, largely because you are using modern definitions for both. For example, severing aqueducts was standard practice for besieging Roman cities. Congrats! You no longer having fresh water! Rome also had an incredibly elaborate system for transporting things like food from agricultural centers like North Africa. But that was also lost and people had to survive on what they could grow locally. Which is why the large cities, including Rome itself, depopulated very rapidly. At it's peak during the Empire, the city of Rome had over a million inhabitants, a number that would not be matched in Europe again until 19th century London. Deurbanization was one of the biggest demonstrations of societal collapse at the time. Many Roman buildings were torn down for building materials simply because they were too big and complex for later people to maintain. Also, you are confusing warlords back then with what we call warlords today. During the early Middle Ages, a "king" often ruled a territory too small to be taken seriously as a nation today. They were warlords in the simple sense that they ruled what territory and people they had through brutality. Who your ruler was could literally change within the space of a day due to one lost battle. You didn't pay taxes to a government that owed you anything in return. Armed thugs simply came to shake you down and take whatever they wanted. "Laws" were whatever the current ruler wanted them to be, and they could change at their whim or certainly if another ruler took over. The Roman Empire was far from perfect. But the level of stability it provided would not been seen again until the rise of nation-states centuries later.
STD is a slightly more tolerable show now that Mikey Spock isn't a wannabe supercomputer anymore. But it still revolves around her instead of the crew. That is what makes Trek good - is that it is group story of stuggles not putting the universe on one person's shoulders.
The Renaissance came about because of the fall of Constantinople to the Turks. The refugees that were able to flee to Western Europe brought with them the “lost” or forgotten knowledge caused by the fall of the western empire to the goths and other barbarians.
I'm a History major, specifically I'm a cultural and political historian that tends to focus on the Middle Ages. I am currently working on my Phd. You raise a good point, but it's more complicated then that. You're not wrong the Fall of Constantinople certainly influenced the Italian Renaissance, it had an enormous influence, but the Northern Renaissance in the Low Countries had very little to do with the Fall of Constantinople. There is an on-going debate amongst historians if the Renaissance should actually be considered a time period. The Renaissance didn't happen everywhere in Europe, and it didn't happen everywhere at the same time. Paris and London experienced parts of the Renaissance, but England and France did not really. The Renaissances of Paris, London, and Low Countries had different characteristics than Italy's city-states. Another point, calling the Middles Ages the Dark Age is also a huge argument. The University System, musical notation, and so on, they all come out of the so called "Dark Age." The development of the modern political state happens in the Dark Age. English and French kings go from being called "King of the English and King of the French" to being "King of England and King of France. It seems small, but it's an important difference, a difference which I could write a book on. English Common Law comes out of the Darks Age. I've had the argument made to me that the Renaissance is just the late Middles Age. Honestly, it is somewhat arbitrary. As a categorical tool, using the Renaissance as a time period has limited usefulness, but it is useful. It is more usual to art and cultural historians, and almost no use to political historians, but again, still useful for some political history points. I could go on. The analogy they use isn't exactly historically apt, in my interpretation, but it's not a bad analogy for the purposes of this television program. History is the reconstruction of the past, it is not the past. History isn't always exactly what actually happened, unfortunately, but it is the STORY of what happened, and all people understand it in there own ways, and through their own cultural lenses. Still, that does not mean all retellings of the past have equal weight or value. It's not all open to interpretation, and people can be wrong. If I say penguins invaded England in 1066 or conquered Constantinople in 1453, the value of the statement is that it reflects my facetious personality, but the statement tells you nothing about the past. In this case hey are using an analogy to make a point. The analogy makes that point well, and it works for how many people like to think about the Renaissance. People do this all the time, sometimes it greatly annoys me I must admit, but even if their point isn't entirely representative of the truth it does frame the point the crew of the Discovery is trying to make. Regardless, you seemed like someone who enjoys history, and I, like most historians, love pedantry haha. I just thought I'd add my two cents on top of yours. Best wishes stranger, keep smiling!
They're both from the future, but Saru is closer in time to the history he is citing than the admiral is. That said, this carries extra weight because Saru, raised on a planet that had no outside contact, knows what he does about Earth history from studying with Starfleet.
I know her actions will have repercussions, this is feeling more like star trek.. challenge accepted she was doing so good there??? I hope mikie is the cause of the burn, so somwhere down the line the crew abandoned the discovery in a nebula...
The "Dark Ages of Earth" were limited to Europe. The rest of the world was doing fine. India, China, Mesopotamia, Persia, Turkey, North Africa, pretty much everyone on the other side of the Mediterranean Sea was thriving. The arts, trade, agriculture, math, sciences, including Astronomy, everything was moving forward at a very good pace, outside of Europe. Hell, even in the Americas, which were completely out of touch with the other continents, things were moving forward well. European countries were the shit hole nations of the world.
Most of the history taught in the west comes out of Europe so there will always be parallels in Western TV. In sense it's only a portion of the story at the front, not the whole story. Aside from that the world also wasn't fine and especially not all the countries and regions you listed. It's a large time scale but a lot of bad stuff happened all over the world. Turkey for example had a war raging between the Ottoman and Byzantine empires and both sides were struck with plagues during the time. The 15th century seen a lot. The major civil wars ended in England, the crusades ended, the Ottoman empire conquered the Byzantine empire effectively ending the Roman empire for good. The end of those conflicts brought relative peace and stability across Europe, north africa, the middle east, eastern Europe and the Baltic states. Additionally sea routes for trade between India and Europe were discovered opening up for more trade and information sharing. The Americas were discovered, the Inca empire which is was the most advanced civilization in the americas up until that point was founded. The printing press was invented so for the first time in known history books and literature could be mass produced. With trade routes expanded information could more easily be passed around much of the world. None if this had anything to do with Giato. Most historians attribute the renaissance in Europe with the fall of the Byzantine empire. Many of the scholars, historians, teachers and educators from the Byzantine empire took up residence in Europe after the fall of Constantinople. Either way the era known to us as "the renaissance" changed the entire world.
@@Bitchslapper316 the episode mentioned the Dark Ages which in Europe lasted from 476 to 800 CE. Usually people use the years 500 - to 1000 CE to denote the period. The Dark Ages was a Western European issue that came about after the Roman Empire withdrew. That is the time period I was discussing. And yes, in comparison, most of the rest of the world was doing fine, if not excelling, during that time period.
@@bosgaurus1 The painter, Giato that Seru was talking about died in 1337. The Renaissance is generally considered to have started around the 14th century and reached it peak in the 15th and 16th centuries.
@@Bitchslapper316 the Renaissance was the rebirth of art, culture , and economics in Europe. Not all of Earth. India, China, Middle East were already there. Europe needed to play catch up. That is why all of the "exploring" took place. Europe was the "shithole" of the world just beginning to dig itself out. That is the whole point.
@@bosgaurus1 The world absolutely changed in the renaissance era. Before the renaissance there were no reliable trade routes to India and the east which is why there wasn't much of an exchange of culture and information between the two major sides of civilization, this changed in the 1400's. No one in europe or the east knew there were another two entire continents filled with people. The renaissance era seen an end to the crusades in the middle east ending centuries of wars that spanned europe, north africa and the middle east. The renaissance era seen an end to conflict in eastern europe including Turkey ending centuries of religious wars that killed countless people. Also as already mentioned the printing press was invented which gave humanity the never before ability to educate and spread knowledge across the world with text and written language. Something that wasn't done anywhere in the world, not in Europe, not in the Ottoman empire, not in the Byzantine empire, not in the middle east, not in the americas, not in China and not in India. It was reserved only for the rich and powerful beforehand. As I said, I don't think any of this was caused by an Italian painter Giato and Seru's analogy didn't fit. I'm just stating a fact and that fact is the entire world changed dramatically in that era.
His irises aren't black, and a Betazoid would have been able to read the truth from their minds even more easily than a Vulcan. In fact, I actually thought it was weird that there don't seem to be *any* telepaths at Future!Federation HQ.
