What's the Difference Between Ahsoka Tano and Michael Burnham?

[Thebestoftherest]

I just hope they never mentioned it ever again outside of discovery.

[Makeshift Python]

Ahsoka has been a hero to a whole young generation for 13 years now that she has become embedded to the franchise as much as Luke Skywalker. Those young kids who watched the show from the premiere date are now a very vocal adults online. Contrast that to 2008, when the initial reaction to her character by mainly older/cynical fans immediately dismissed her character. I definitely remember "Mary Sue" being thrown around A LOT.

I'll be curious of what the fan consensus on Burnham is in 2030. She definitely has her fans, but they seem to be primarily newer fans that came into the franchise in recent years, whereas a lot of those that don't like her are those who have been fans of Trek as far back as the Berman era or earlier, and have their own baggage of what Star Trek should be.

It definitely reminds me of the split in fandom when the first Abrams films came out. On the one hand, there's a loud vocal group of fans who regarded it as an assault on the franchise, but on the other it created new fans that went back and discovered all of the 1966-2005 content that older fans revere.

[Link8909]

Ahsoka has been a hero to a whole young generation for 13 years now that she has become embedded to the franchise as much as Luke Skywalker. Those young kids who watched the show from the premiere date are now a very vocal adults online. Contrast that to 2008, when the initial reaction to her character by mainly older/cynical fans immediately dismissed her character. I definitely remember "Mary Sue" being thrown around A LOT.

I'll be curious of what the fan consensus on Burnham is in 2030. She definitely has her fans, but they seem to be primarily newer fans that came into the franchise in recent years, whereas a lot of those that don't like her are those who have been fans of Trek as far back as the Berman era or earlier, and have their own baggage of what Star Trek should be.

It definitely reminds me of the split in fandom when the first Abrams films came out. On the one hand, there's a loud vocal group of fans who regarded it as an assault on the franchise, but on the other it created new fans that went back and discovered all of the 1966-2005 content that older fans revere.

I absolutely agree with all this, and it's why I always try not to go into hyperbole and convey my criticisms both positive and negative in a constructive manner, because much like with both Ahsoka and Michael and their respective series, any new addition to a franchise will always have vocal detractors, and simply going into angry rants about how the new thing isn't living up to ones expectations (regardless of justification) doesn't do the image of a fandom any justice, and as I've said, this isn't a new thing, there were people just as angry about The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine when they first aired as people are about Discovery and Picard.

Plus, as you said, I take an appreciation on knowing that people are getting into the franchise because of the newer films or series, for example I've read comments on how people got into Star Trek The Next Generation because they first watched and enjoyed Star Trek Picard, and while I personally have issues with Star Trek (2009) and Into Darkness, I'm grateful that people did get into Star Trek because of them, and showed that there was still interest and potently in Star Trek and it wouldn't go the way of so many other beloved Sci-Fi properties,

I also want to say I'm absolutely grateful to both Chuck and Linkara, because of Chuck's research and delving into the history of a film or series I have a greater appreciation for the work that goes into them, even if the final product isn't perfect I can still see the passion and effort put into it, and because of Linkara and his speeches on toxic nostalgia, fan entitlement, and his understanding attitude towards creative teams, I have learned not to get angry over a film or series that didn't reach my expectations and to not harass and villainies the people who work hard on those films and series, and of course both as reviewers have helped me better convey my own views in a constructive manner.

Without them and Star Trek still continuing its message of optimism and open-mindedness to the unknown, I dread to think where I would be now.

[Link8909]

Something I've been thinking about lately, and something I love about both Ahsoka and Michael, is how both these new characters are used to enhance the older characters around them.

For Ahsoka, because of her being the apprentice and surrogate sister to Anakin, we get to delve into his character more than the Prequel Trilogy had time for, and showed aspects of him that were only inferred to, as well as new elements like him in a mentor role, so by the end of the series its easy to see how Anakin could fall to the Dark Side, Ahsoka also gave a chance to see the point of view of a Jedi Apprentice not just during training, but in war.

For Michael, because of her being the adopted sister to Spock, it gave us a chance to see a human learning Vulcan teachings, we got to delve more into Spock's character in season 2, and even Sarek's character, we saw more of Sarek's fascination with humanity and wanting to bridge the two together, showing his belief in the Vulcan Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations philosophy, and showing someone that did love Amanda, and would even use an ancient Vulcan ritual to bring Spock back simply because as he put it "It is the right thing to do."

And because of this connection we got to delve into Spock's character during this time, and not only was the early emotional interpretation incorporated into his character, but we got to see his relationship with Captain Pike and Number One, and expand on the original intended characters from the pilot, in-fact without Michael being the adopted sister to Spock, we wouldn't be getting the Strange New Worlds series.

[Jonathan101]

Something I've been thinking about lately, and something I love about both Ahsoka and Michael, is how both these new characters are used to enhance the older characters around them.

For Ahsoka, because of her being the apprentice and surrogate sister to Anakin, we get to delve into his character more than the Prequel Trilogy had time for, and showed aspects of him that were only inferred to, as well as new elements like him in a mentor role, so by the end of the series its easy to see how Anakin could fall to the Dark Side, Ahsoka also gave a chance to see the point of view of a Jedi Apprentice not just during training, but in war.

For Michael, because of her being the adopted sister to Spock, it gave us a chance to see a human learning Vulcan teachings, we got to delve more into Spock's character in season 2, and even Sarek's character, we saw more of Sarek's fascination with humanity and wanting to bridge the two together, showing his belief in the Vulcan Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations philosophy, and showing someone that did love Amanda, and would even use an ancient Vulcan ritual to bring Spock back simply because as he put it "It is the right thing to do."

And because of this connection we got to delve into Spock's character during this time, and not only was the early emotional interpretation incorporated into his character, but we got to see his relationship with Captain Pike and Number One, and expand on the original intended characters from the pilot, in-fact without Michael being the adopted sister to Spock, we wouldn't be getting the Strange New Worlds series.

Thing is, I think Anakin needed that a lot more than Spock did as Spock had gotten a LOT more exposure over several decades than Anakin did, and I think Ashoka also showed sides to the Jedi and Republic we hadn't seen as well.

TCW actually nailed Anakin Skywalker at a time when he really needed it; it found a happy medium between the whiny teenager from the prequels and the unstoppable killing machine from the original movies. Spock didn't need anything like that and I think he serves Michael more than Michael serves Spock- if she had been adopted by a totally original Vulcan family I don't think it would have made much of a difference.

[shikomekidomi]

A lot of focus in this thread has been on how Ahsoka is easier to slot into her franchise's timeline than Michael and I do think that matters, but there's something I think matters more: Ahsoka, when she was introduced, was not the main character, she was a sidekick. It's much easier for the audience to accept side characters being introduced awkwardly. Certainly she was an important side character, but she wasn't Anakin or Obi-Wan. Michael is the lead of her program so everything is under more scrutiny.

[Thebestoftherest]

I didn't even think of that, good call Shikomekidomi.

[GreyICE]

Well for one, "Spock's never mentioned sibling" is such a trope in Star Trek fanfiction that it could basically get its own category. So you're just walking in to ridicule with that concept, the jokes write themselves.

The second is that TNG/DS9/Voyager were ensemble shows. To find anything comparable to Michael in S1/2 prominence you have to go all the way back to Kirk. Kirk remains a divisive character, even though TOS gets a lot of a pass for being written a long time ago and being the first Star Trek.

Third, it wasn't just that she was Michael's brother, oh no. No, that wasn't enough. She was also:

- Good enough to get into the Vulcan Science academy
- Trained biologist, physicist, and engineer, and competent enough at all three to keep up and surpass specialists
- Hand-to-hand combat expert
- Expert pilot, superior to other trained pilots
- Capable of overpowering trained security officers

And so on and so forth. In addition to this, she is:

- Adopted by the Empress of Mankind in the mirror universe (making her a literal princess)
- The focus of obsession for Lorca
- Extremely important to Sarek (established character)
- The focus of a time travel plot
- The literal savior of the federation thanks to timey-wimey bullshit
- The love interest of the Klingon-human infiltrator
- The center of every fucking plot and subplot in the first two seasons

A lot of these are simply bad writing. However for Season 1/2, Discovery had a ton of bad writing, and the bad writing always seemed to focus on Princess Burnham and how she had the solution to, well, everything. Is there a stable time loop being used against them? Burnham knows the way out. Etc.

Contrast this with TNG.

Time Loop: In cause and effect, Beverly (usually a bit character) is the one who notes the time loop, this gives her a lot more screen time.
Solve a major technical/science issue: Multiple times by multiple people, but usually the role of Geordi, Data, Wesley, or Crusher
Win a hand-to-hand fight: Riker, Data, occasionally Picard (Worf gets into many fights too)
Get chosen by aliens for great destiny: Wesley (a much beloved character)
Handle a political problem: Picard (never Troy, which is ridiculous, but that's its own issue)

In Discovery 1/2, it's very hard to find a time one of those happens and Burnham isn't right in the center of it. Basically, Burnham wasn't a bad character, but she was the focus of a lot of bad writing. She also violated the ensemble nature of Star Trek by being a hypercompetent single character. And meanwhile she's an actual literal hypercompetent princess, this is writing on the level of comic book characters.

Fortunately they started Season 3 by blowing that all up, and that was good.


Ahsoka, on the other hand, is a trainee. She's obviously force sensitive, and a good fighter, but that's about it. She's not the secret heir to some long-lost empire, she's not amazingly skilled at everything, she's just being trained by Anakin. She has ups and downs, failures, things she needs to work on, and definitely isn't the focus of every episode. In fact in many episodes she's just a side character as the plot feels no need to shoehorn her in every second.

[HumanXeroxMachine]

Don't forget Michael graduated at the top of her class...at the Vulcan science academy. So she's even smarter than...Vulcans... Yeah sure...not with her stupid boneheaded decisions.

[MerelyAFan]

Honestly Michael would have been a lot more interesting if the first two seasons of Discovery took place between TOS and TNG. Her being the adopted daughter of Sarek and Perrin not only would have fit in easier (with Spock only really having 1-2 appearances in the post TOS movie era and not as much time to mention her) it could have been an interesting avenue to explore further.

Her being greatly accomplished, yet still in the shadow of one of the most famous Vulcans in history as well as lacking a closeness to Spock because the latter might have distanced himself from family after Amanda's death? There's a ton of ways to go with that. Her closeness to Sarek could be happening alongside the fallout with his son making the family dynamic even more complicated as a result.

The problem is that Michael often felt designed to be important rather than engaging and the resulting relationship with Spock seemed more about demonstrating how critical she was to his character development than anything else. That mentality hasn't done her favors in getting the audience as they could be.