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

[Makeshift Python]

The odd thing about the development of Michael's relationship with that family is that Spock was originally never going to appear. If you look at the first season, it's much more focused on her relationship with Sarek, with only one episode informing on his relationship with his son, as opposed to Michael's relationship with Spock. It wasn't until the change up in the writing staff that someone said "let's actually use Spock, why are we pussyfooting over this?" and so the second season was all about delving into her relationship with Spock, as if to finally justify the point of making her Spock's adopted sister. And now she's in the 32nd century, so any TOS related thread is effectively done with.

What a wild ride.

[Link8909]

The odd thing about the development of Michael's relationship with that family is that Spock was originally never going to appear. If you look at the first season, it's much more focused on her relationship with Sarek, with only one episode informing on his relationship with his son, as opposed to Michael's relationship with Spock. It wasn't until the change up in the writing staff that someone said "let's actually use Spock, why are we pussyfooting over this?" and so the second season was all about delving into her relationship with Spock, as if to finally justify the point of making her Spock's adopted sister. And now she's in the 32nd century, so any TOS related thread is effectively done with.

What a wild ride.

Indeed, and I do feel this is where the issue lies.

I've gone on record about how I'm fine with Michael being the adopted sister to Spock, and I'm fine with adding new aspects to the series overall, but if they're going to make additions they need to explore them, and season one of Star Trek Discovery simply doesn't capitalise on this, the season arc of Michael's redemption didn't allow this to be explore as much as it should, and as you said they were not originally plaining to explore, in-fact it would have been better if Michael was just an apprentice to Sarek and nothing more.

I am glad that season two did explore this new dynamic, and I personally think is wonderful, but because it's also tied into the main story arc to save that galaxy it's not given the emotional weight it deserves, had it been divorced for the main story like Paul and Hugh's arc or like Michael's arc in season three, I feel it would have worked better.

I feel this is another case of Bryan Fuller wanting change for the sake of change, and rather than questioning why a change or addition is made or if it will serve the story or franchise, they just do it because they want to, I'm fine with change, but you need more justification than "I don't like round nacelles" and those changes need to be explored, like with Ahsoka from the start of The Clone Wars they explore this new dynamic.

I'm also gave that they didn't back peddle on this either, it would have been easy to pretend this didn't happen, but instead they not only explored this relationship in season two, but it was still a factor not ignored in season three, and while I do like the new direction of Star Trek Discovery, would have liked to have seen more, but I'm happy with what we got in season two, and because of this we will get to see more of this Spock in the upcoming Star Trek Strange New Worlds.

[GreyICE]

You know, I just thought of this, but this works so much better if she was adopted by another Vulcan couple. Like Sarek is the ambassador to earth, right? He's special, but he's not unique. Another Vulcan couple could have easily adopted her.

It'd work even better. Sarek has regularly visited Michael in his role as ambassador to earth, and because "the girl adopted by the Vulcans" is an important symbol of their species unity. He becomes aware that the Vulcan Science Academy won't admit two "deviants" in the same year. Even though he's a mentor to Michael and admires her logically, he loves Spock, and pulls the strings. Then Spock turns it down anyway!

This is actually a better story. Not only does it remove the silliness of "Spock's sister", it's much more organic. Sarek did a bad thing to help his son, and yet all he was doing is trying to make his son into what Sarek believed he should be. Michael could have been that thing that Spock never was, and he knows it, and he denied her that opportunity.

The pain and guilt would have been immense, and Michael finding out someone she saw as a mentor betrayed her would have been huge. Hell, she could have this entire complex of hatred and rage to unleash on Spock - who would only be peripherally aware of her existence.

This is still a retcon, but it's a better retcon, because it shows more of how Sarek and Spock got estranged without adding mystery daughters/sisters. It's just one incident of someone being hurt because of Sarek's unreasonableness (from Spock's perspective).

I swear the more I think about it, the more it's the second most infuriating thing about the backstory they cooked up for Michael (behind the "Princess Burnham" angle)