What was the point of Burhnam being raised by Sarek?

[Romulan_spy]

Burhnam being raised a Vulcan was a key plot point in the pilot. But it seems to have been dropped in the following episodes. Burnham does not act or talk like a Vulcan in any way. She behaves like any other human. So why did the producers give her character that specific background? Was just an excuse to have Sarek in the pilot? Will her backstory come into play again in a future episode?

 

[Mudd]

Having seen it now, it's pretty clearly fan service.

The strategy of this show, startlingly, turns out to be loving attention to the fan base. Even changing up the Klingons is, ultimately, feeding the fan fetish surrounding that familiar aspect of the Franchise. It gives fans something safe and harmless to build a controversy around on social media.

In this context and only in this context the opening credit sequence is inspired: look at the props you adore, watch us drawing and designing the spaceship. This show is not about anything so much as it's about reminding the audience that they're watching Star Trek.

 

[Tuskin38]

She acted pretty Vulcan in the flash backs where she first boarded the ship.

Georgiou might have been trying to get her to act more human over the years.

Michael still acts Vulcan in some scenes.

 

[USS Triumphant]

There's SO much impatience regarding her character. We are five episodes in. I'm confident they have a story to tell with her. I, for one, am content to let them do it on their schedule, because I'm enjoying what they're doing overall. Are you not entertained?

 

[Romulan_spy]

She acted pretty Vulcan in the flash backs where she first boarded the ship.

That was in the pilot when she first boarded the Shenzhou. I am talking about when comes aboard the Discovery. On the Discovery, she acts completely human.

 

[Romulan_spy]

Are you not entertained?

Yes I am entertained. But I thought it was a question worth asking.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Yes I am entertained. But I thought it was a question worth asking.

(I really only added that last part the way I did because I wanted to use that phrasing. )

 

[Burning Hearts of Qo'nos]

That scene in Choose Your Pain when she's buttering up Stamets before discussing the Tardigrade, I instantly thought, 'Well, there she goes thinking like a Vulcan but in a weird..human way.' I laughed out loud at that part. I think that the parts of her that are Vulcan are pretty subtle, like situations like this. I can also buy it as some of the reason why her dialogue and delivery can be a bit clunky at times. Either way, I'm pretty sure it will be part of her character or story more prominently later down the line. Inception-wise, yeah I agree it was for fanservice reasons, but that doesn't mean it won't be worth while eventually.

 

[Succubint]

I don't think she does. She was still quite stern and stoic in the past few episodes. Often does not speak if not necessary. She still attempts to stifle her emotional responses. She still gives off an intellectual air which is very Vulcan. Some viewers have called her smug and superior as a result. A common complaint about Vulcans.

She approaches many things in a logical, dispassionate way - like not informing Saru as to her true intentions in calling him down to the lab. It was not out of spite, but necessity to keep the test pure - in her mind.

I think she's still struggling to reconcile both aspects of her nature. However, she does seem to be warming to people like Tilly and Stamets. That will help bring out that more human, compassionate side to her.

I believe her back story will come to play in the next episode if the teaser is anything to go by.

 

[alex08060]

Probably wants Sarek involve. Also her Vulcan training probably influenced her descsion to mutiny.

 

[Trekfan12]

I think all will be revealed....eventually

 

[Nerys Myk]

Burhnam being raised a Vulcan was a key plot point in the pilot. But it seems to have been dropped in the following episodes. Burnham does not act or talk like a Vulcan in any way. She behaves like any other human. So why did the producers give her character that specific background? Was just an excuse to have Sarek in the pilot? Will her backstory come into play again in a future episode?

Sarek is in the next episode, so we might get details there.

 

[Charles Phipps]

That was in the pilot when she first boarded the Shenzhou. I am talking about when comes aboard the Discovery. On the Discovery, she acts completely human.

Basically, Georgiou tried to deprogram her and the result was "Oh, the traumatized girl goes back to being traumatized."

 

[Charles Phipps]

To answer the OP's question:

"The same reason Supergirl is Superman's cousin. So that when we begin this story, you're aware not only is Michael important but she's connected to that thing you love."

 

[Kor]

It was awfully decent of Sarek to take Michael in as a ward/adoptee/foster child. Taking in a child by adoption or foster care is laudable, and I think it's rather rude to ask, "What's the point?" Her parents were killed in an attack, and Sarek and Amanda were able to take her in and care for her and have her be part of their family. That was the point in and of itself.

Kor

 

[Sir Stewart Wallace]

Having seen it now, it's pretty clearly fan service.

The strategy of this show, startlingly, turns out to be loving attention to the fan base. Even changing up the Klingons is, ultimately, feeding the fan fetish surrounding that familiar aspect of the Franchise. It gives fans something safe and harmless to build a controversy around on social media.

In this context and only in this context the opening credit sequence is inspired: look at the props you adore, watch us drawing and designing the spaceship. This show is not about anything so much as it's about reminding the audience that they're watching Star Trek.

To the writers, producers, and CBS executives, the premise does not hold up. Star Trek on its own does not sell. There's no reason for this show to be set in the 23rd century other than accessibility to the familiar. Tepidly going where we've gone before.

 

[Nerys Myk]

To the writers, producers, and CBS executives, the premise does not hold up. Star Trek on its own does not sell. There's no reason for this show to be set in the 23rd century other than accessibility to the familiar. Tepidly going where we've gone before.

Wait, I thought it wasn't Trek enough? Now it's too Trek?

 

[Sir Stewart Wallace]

Wait, I though it wasn't Trek enough? Now it's too Trek?

"Trek" is not the 23rd century. It's not Klingons or Spock or cool little transporter noises. The show can be judged on its own 'Trekiness' (or lack thereof) while also being acknowledged as a pretty cynical retread.

 

[Vger23]

There's no reason for this show to be set in the 23rd century other than accessibility to the familiar. Tepidly going where we've gone before.

As opposed to a boring, passionless, static, stagnant 24th century setting?

You couldn't have the characters that you have in DSC in this story if you set it in the 24th century. Now, you can argue the merits of the DSC characters all you want...but NOBODY would buy these characters in Picard and Janeway's antiseptic and morally superior time frame.

So they set it around Kirk's time when human beings were still recognizable as such.

So again...you can argue the merits of those choices, and you can argue all about whether it is the right or wrong approach, but you can't say that the setting was only done for marketing purposes (although that certainly had something to do with it...the TOS era is far more recognized and marketable). It was essential to the type of story they wanted to tell and the type of characters they wanted to tell the story through.

 

[Spider]

I have yet to see a point to Burntham being raised by Sarek, or even having any Vulcan training at all except for a failed neck pinch.

And conveniently mind melding across galactic distances to get her mutinous ass saved.

I really hope they start writing her better. This latest episode was a start.