Excellent. So we agree that surprise new family members happened only once before Burnham.
And before you claim again that this isn't what we were talking about:
You seem to believe that the words “unrevealed relative” can only mean that their very existence was an unknown quantity before their introduction. I meant that the introduction of his relatives has always included a reveal, something I have expressed repeatedly and many other posters have had no problem understanding.
And please don’t try to make it seem like I’m moving a goalpost by cherry picking and deleting entirely relevant portions of the quoted post to remove the context they provide.
The same post you just quoted in it’s entirety, with a portion at the end I put in bold now:
There is nothing about Michael being Spock’s sister that is at all far fetched, or ridiculous. There is nothing about her that makes her any more unnecessary than any other Star Trek character, something that is just patently presposterous to say.
Spock having an unrevealed relative he never mentioned before we see them onscreen is 100% in character. And Sarek, who married two humans and has a Vulcan/human son, adopting a human child isn’t the slightest bit ridiculous, illogical, or far fetched, it would be again, wholly consistent with his character.
Michael being Spock’s sister doesn’t contradict anything, or strain logic or believability at all, without applying a standard that ignores literally every instance of Spock’s family and past that has ever come up in the history of Star Trek.
I’m now, and always have been discussing Spock keeping his family and his history private, setting a precedent that the introduction of Michael upholds, and in no way clashes with or contradicts.
Last edited: