What was the point of Burhnam being raised by Sarek?

[Sir Stewart Wallace]

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

Yes, TNG/DS9/VOY certainly stuck to that vision. Who can forget Picard's monotone, milquetoast delivery of "I say now, there are four lights, Gul Madred, care for a spot of tea?" or Sisko's polite and measured way of dealing with his crew?

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.

There should have been more interpersonal conflict on TNG and VOY. But there's also something good about a society that aspires to be better than it once was. But aspiring to greatness is not dark and gritty, so...

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

They set it around Kirk's time for fan service.

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.

I wouldn't say it was only done for marketing purposes. There's the fan service aspect. And even if the writers felt humans in the 24th century were just too darn perfect for this edgy, dark, gritty tale, why would it be so hard to believe a "morally superior and antiseptic" human society could change after years of warfare? Would that be too hard to believe?

You can believe the show is the best Star Trek in history and that's fine. But 'true' Trek didn't die out in 1987. Some of us like the 24th century just fine, and would love to see what happens in the 25th, and so on.

The human adventure continues...until it's too boring, then we'll just go back to Kirk and Spock. Klingons!

 

[Noname Given]

Yes, TNG/DS9/VOY certainly stuck to that vision. Who can forget Picard's monotone, milquetoast delivery of "I say now, there are four lights, Gul Madred, care for a spot of tea?" or Sisko's polite and measured way of dealing with his crew?

Yep and it only took TNG 6 seaasons to get to that particular example; and DS9 3 Seasons. Lets see - 5 episodes VS 6 Seasons...yep, fair comparison there.

 

[Nerys Myk]

You can believe the show is the best Star Trek in history and that's fine. But 'true' Trek didn't die out in 1987. Some of us like the 24th century just fine, and would love to see what happens in the 25th, and so on.

The human adventure continues...until it's too boring, then we'll just go back to Kirk and Spock. Klingons!

I hope you're not one of those "the only way forward is through a calendar" types.

 

[Vger23]

Yes, TNG/DS9/VOY certainly stuck to that vision. Who can forget Picard's monotone, milquetoast delivery of "I say now, there are four lights, Gul Madred, care for a spot of tea?" or Sisko's polite and measured way of dealing with his crew?



There should have been more interpersonal conflict on TNG and VOY. But there's also something good about a society that aspires to be better than it once was. But aspiring to greatness is not dark and gritty, so...



They set it around Kirk's time for fan service.



I wouldn't say it was only done for marketing purposes. There's the fan service aspect. And even if the writers felt humans in the 24th century were just too darn perfect for this edgy, dark, gritty tale, why would it be so hard to believe a "morally superior and antiseptic" human society could change after years of warfare? Would that be too hard to believe?

You can believe the show is the best Star Trek in history and that's fine. But 'true' Trek didn't die out in 1987. Some of us like the 24th century just fine, and would love to see what happens in the 25th, and so on.

The human adventure continues...until it's too boring, then we'll just go back to Kirk and Spock. Klingons!

I love 24th century Trek just fine, but it wouldn't have facilitated the story or themes they were trying to tell here.

As Picard said "wishing for a thing does not make it so."

The series isn't going to magically become a post-Nemesis show. And it doesn't need to. If that's what y'all are waiting for, I'd say that you should pack it in now. Nothing but anger and disappointment ahead.


Oh, and if they wanted to "service the fans," it WOULD have been a post-Nemesis show.

 

[Sir Stewart Wallace]

Does anybody remember laughter?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Does anybody remember laughter?

Let me access my emotional response sub routines. Ah. There it is.

 

[ralfy]

Good point. And if the purpose is only to make fans happy, then it is likely not working. Unless I'm overestimating the fan base.

 

[Commishsleer]

Good point. And if the purpose is only to make fans happy, then it is likely not working. Unless I'm overestimating the fan base.

Good luck in getting the fanbase to agree on anything.
I'm curious to see if anyone knows if there is another fanbase more self-destructive.

 

[Noname Given]

Does anybody remember laughter?

If you're talking TNG - no, the 'humor' (except for maybe Deanna's 'drunk' scene in ST:FC (the feature film) was more cringe-worthy than laugh out loud funny. (YMMV of course.)

 

[F. King Daniel]

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."

This. Also I expect more connections as the story goes on. Her backstory will be important to the plot, down the line.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Rather than write it off so early in the show, I'm assuming there's a good reason once we see this series pan out. Just because we're not heavy in Sarek appearances doesn't mean he was dropped early.

 

[Michael]

Liked all the episodes so far, loved the last three. I have confidence in the writers. Let's wait and see.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

What was the point of Burhnam being raised by Sarek?

And not another Vulcan? Fanwank. Pure and simple.

 

[galad2003]

It comes across as very Mary Sue-ish and serves no purpose IMO.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Especially if supposedly Spock will never appear. He's just this unseen shadow that looms over everything...

 

[BillJ]

What was the point? To get subscriptions to All-Access.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

What was the point? To get subscriptions to All-Access.

Because fans wouldn't have subscribed if they found out Sarek wasn't in the new show.

I assume Fuller just wanted to explore more of Sarek because he thought the character was... fascinating.

Of course they could have just made up an entirely new character but that also would have likely been seen as a Sarek knockoff anyway. So rather than create a new character that has the same family dynamics, they just go for the genuine article.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Fan wankery?

I aint complainin, I love it. Gives us some more insight as to Sarek.

 

[Cinema Geekly]

It comes across as very Mary Sue-ish and serves no purpose IMO.

In what way specifically?

 

[gblews]

And not another Vulcan? Fanwank. Pure and simple.

And if Burnham had turned up as "some other Vulcan's daughter", we would have heard from other fans wondering, "why couldn't she have been Sarek's daughter? Yeah, at least we know who he is. It's supposed to be a prequel, isn't it?".

They handled this aspect of DSC exactly the way they should have, without regard for what the fans would say.