Interview: Sonequa Martin-Green Says ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Will Reveal Why Spock Never Mentioned Michael

Sonequa Martin-Green at NYCC Star Trek: Discovery press roundtable

After the Star Trek: Discovery panel at New York Comic Con, TrekMovie had a chance to talk with the cast and executive producers at roundtable interviews in the press room, where they elaborated on some of what they’d said in the panel about the character arcs (for both new and returning characters) and stories coming in season two. We’ll be rolling more of them out throughout the week, but start with the show’s lead.

Sonequa Martin-Green (Michael Burnham) hit the roundtable interviews solo, and talked about plans for her character Michael Burnham, the introduction of Spock, as well as her overall sense of where the new season is headed. Watch the full video below the interview.

Will Michael Burnham’s redemption arc continue in season two?

Oh for sure. The redemption continues, at least the journey to redemption continues, because what I realized as Burnham is that I have to forgive myself. I’ve been sort of redeemed, professionally speaking. I’ve been reinstated into Starfleet. I’ve been redeemed interpersonally. A lot of my coworkers and dear friends and loved ones have forgiven me and understood why I made the choices that I made, though they weren’t the right ones. But I do definitely have to forgive myself, and I carry a lot of guilt, as Burnham.

That’s a huge cornerstone for me, shame and guilt, because of things that happened, namely the murder of my parents, which was because of me. That’s a hell of a lot for a child to take on and carry with them through their maturation. So the redemption has to continue and it has to include a forgiveness and acceptance of my very self, and I say to Sarek in the pilot, that my emotions inform my logic, but what I need to find next is how my logic then informs my emotion. And that will show a synergy of all the parts of me. An acceptance of my emotion, an acceptance of my logic, an acceptance of my humanity, an acceptance of my Vulcan indoctrination … which is the journey of every human being, right? We have to find a way to accept all the parts of us and figure out how they work together, right? And we want that to be a seamless working together, but that’s a long journey for all of us. And that’s certainly the journey that’s continuing for me.

Michael Burnham in the Star Trek: Discovery season one finale “Will You Take My Hand?”

How would you define Burnham’s relationship with Spock?

Complicated. Difficult. Strenuous. We don’t shy away from that, either, which I love. And season 2, as I said in the panel just now, is deeply emotional. And I pray and hope that people can go on the journey with us wholeheartedly because it will wrench your heart. Because it is so deeply emotional. And of course, as we saw in the trailer, that wonderful trailer, that there’s lots of action, but this season digs down to a deeper emotional level than season 1 did. And I’m hoping that people just grit their teeth and are at the edge of their seats and take it in.

Are we going to find out why Spock has never told anyone about Michael?

Oh gosh, yeah. And we mentioned that too, you know … there’s a long game with Star Trek: Discovery. Because it is hyper-serialized, and because it is a novel told in chapters, there is a through-line, and there are conceptual weavings that take time to unravel – that might have been a mixed metaphor, but we’re just going to go with it – but I really encourage everyone to trust that every single question that we raise in Star Trek: Discovery that may seem like it’s not canon-compliant, every one of those questions gets answered. Every one.

Does Burnham wrestle with her spur-of-the-moment decision to bring back Mirror Georgiou?

For sure. What you’ll see in season 2 with Burnham – and with everyone else – is the aftermath. You’ll see the residual after the war, the war is over now, and now there’s time to think about everything that’s happened. And to look at the mess we’ve left behind and what we’ll do with it. And now, who are we? And where are we, and what are we doing, and what have I done and who am I now? And who are we now? Because there is a lot of aftermath after that war, there’s a lot of residual effect from the war. So that is just one of them – this huge decision that I made to bring Georgiou back, I will certainly be wrestling with that along with every other decision that was made throughout the course of season 1.

Emperor Georgiou in Star Trek: Discovery season one finale

If you love someone, it doesn’t mean you should set them free …

Are you having fun working with Michelle Yeoh again?

Yes!!! Oh my gosh! We’re just so happy to have her … I mean, she’s a living legend. To have her is incredible. So we’ll take as much as we can get.

How do you balance your ownership of the character with the various directors, given that they come and go but you know the character so well, playing her in every episode?

That’s the great thing about collaboration, because the longer you sit with someone, the better you know them, right? The longer you live in this life, and tell this story, the better acquainted you are with it naturally, right? So yes, there does come a point where you have an intrinsic understanding of what you will do, what you wouldn’t do, what you would say, what you wouldn’t say … your instincts just get more and more honed.

I, for one, take the director’s vision very seriously, I take the words on the page very seriously. And so I always want to facilitate that. I want to bring the words, this writer’s words to live, I want to give over to the director’s vision. Though they may be a guest, it’s still their vision that I want to serve. But there does have to be the collaborative element to it. I have to say, “Oh actually, I don’t think that this is the case because let me tell you about these five memories, and how they relate to this moment, and how I think it should actually be calibrated a little bit that was or this way.” But I do think at the same time, that there’s a necessity to say yes, as an actor. Because you certainly don’t want to be the type of artist who just says no, and just assumes that they know what’s best, no matter what. So sometimes, it’s really really helpful to say yes, even though it seems like it wouldn’t be you, because what if it is you? What if you do do this thing that is not in your normal behavior? How does that affect you? So that happens too.

Jonathan Frakes directing Sonequa Martin-Green and Mary Wiseman

Where would you like to see Michael Burnham at the end of season two?

I would like for Michael Burnham to be in a place of true self-love, by the end of season two.

Watch the full interview

More from NYCC

There is more to come from our post-panel interviews, plus details from the panels in our coverage of New York Comic Con. So stay tuned.

Star Trek: Discovery is available exclusively in the USA on CBS All Access. It airs in Canada on Space and streams on CraveTV. It is available on Netflix everywhere else. The second season will debut on All Access and Space on Thursday, January 17th, 2019, and on Netflix January 18th.

The first season of Star Trek: Discovery will be released on Blu-ray and DVD on November 13th.

Keep up with all the Star Trek: Discovery news here at TrekMovie.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Are we going to find out why Spock has never told anyone about Michael?”

Is it possible that the Discovery and its crew are going to eventually erase themselves from the Prime Timeline because of all of their dimension hopping hijinks?


Love that idea.

That would be a great way to close out the series. lol

I’d say it’s more likely that Spock and Michael will have some kind of falling out.

Perhaps over the Vulcan Science Academy? I’d be bitter if my father gave my spot to my brother and than he turned it down. Hopefully, she’s not shallow enough to blame him for it though.

Personally, I say it’s likely that Spock neglected to mention it because it was never important. Such as it didn’t become important to mention that his father was the Vulcan Ambassador to the Federation until Sarek was standing in front of Kirk or to mention that Sybok was his half-brother until Kirk wanted Spock to kill him. Spock is a very private individual, even among his closest friends.

I wouldn’t mention her. She’s​ a terrible person. Plus this is another universe from original prime, so it doesn’t really matter.

And you are in another universe from reality.

We all are.

LOL, you guys are so mean here!

They’re not just mean they’re ignorant. LOL

Waaah! You sunk my Battleship!

It doesn’t really matter why Spock never mentioned Michael. He didn’t mention Sybok was his half brother or that Sarek was his father until it became relevant to share. So it is pretty much established that Spock has a history of keeping his personal life private. Even from his Captain and best friend.

Except that Sybok wasn’t responsible for starting a war with the Klingons and was then a significant part in bringing that war to an end. Michael would have been a well known figure in Starfleet and it would have been common knowledge that she was Sybok’s ward, something Kirk woudl have been well aware of. Spock, it seems, kept a much lower profile.


Kirk didn’t even know Ambassador Sarek, who was a big deal in the Federation, was Spock’s father. So one can’t really be sure what Kirk could have known about Spock’s other family ties. A biographical record of Spock wouldn’t tell Kirk who his very important father is? Apparently not. So why would it be common knowledge that Michael was Sarek’s ward?

This! There’s no way that there would not be any information about the family of a Federation Ambassador especially when his son is serving aboard one of the few Constitution class starships as first officer. There seems a lot of picking and choosing at times when it comes to what people get up in arms about in Trek.

These arguments are so weird. Yes Kirk didn’t know about Ambassador Sarek because the character hasn’t been written yet lol. I mean I get what people are trying to say but we have to have some common sense. It had nothing to do with Spock, it was the writers who decided they wanted to introduce his family and came up with all that later. That’s all. I’m sure if they had developed Spock more before the show we would’ve known all about his parents. And this was 60s television, this happened on EVERY show where some relative would show up out of the blue after never being mentioned once. It was infamous in sitcoms.

The only point being made by Spock having a sister THIS late in the game feels a lot more shoehorn in because frankly it is. Now can people come up with every silly reason why Spock never mentioned having a sister even though he talked about his father and Kirk later on in life, sure? Although for the life of me I don’t know how that discounts Sarek from never mentioning her either although he certainly talked about Spock but I’ll digress. ;)

I wish they didn’t go this angle at all. But now that they DID hopefully it will have some reasonable explanation. But it’s silly to compare Sarek to Burnham.

Well no kidding. It was the question – “Are we going to find out why Spock has never told anyone about Michael?” which I found to be a silly question that didn’t really require an answer because Michael simply hadn’t been written into the Star Trek canon yet. But for those that do require an explanation, Spock has a history of not mentioning much about his private life until the story requires it.

The point I’m making though is that they introduced his parents in what, season 2? There is nothing wrong with that. THAT’S common. They simply created an excuse for Spock of why he didn’t mention them before, fine. There is nothing wrong in how they did it considering they weren’t even meant to be recurring characters. They showed up in literally one episode and then you didn’t see them again until 15 years later in the movies.

This is a different situation entirely. They are pretending somehow Spock would never mention in his entire life he had a sister IN STARFLEET and is now one of the most infamous characters in that franchise history for being not only one of the culprits for starting a war with their biggest enemies but also their first mutineer as well. And no one knows she and Spock are related??? Did they downgrade Google in the 23rd century or something? The first human raised by Vulcans, only human to graduate from the Science Academy and is the daughter of one of Earth’s most iconic Vulcan ambassadors, how the hell is this just not common knowledge?? At least in Starfleet. If she wasn’t famous before the war, she sure is now lol.

It just feels soooooooo ridiculous. Spock shouldn’t have to mention he has a sister, everyone should just KNOW it given the situation.

I get your point. Bringing in Burnham now would be like the new Picard show telling us that Picard had a secret brother who was the person responsible for organizing the Marquis. He just never told anyone.

But, had they done that in the 5th season of TNG, no one would bat an eye. The real issue, I think, with doing stuff like this is the time gap. When 30 years of a character has gone by and we have been introduced to nearly every element of his background, it just feels wrong to shoehorn a brand new heretofore unmentioned element into their backstory. Even if one could force it in to work within the established canon.

I think that’s the issue ML31 and the time gap mostly. I agree if they presented a long lost brother of Picard in season 5 I don’t think anyone would blink. But if they presented one decades later on another show yeah I think it would just bother people more. Not everyone but certainly others.

And there is a lot of reasons for it, but mostly because as you said we have seen or known about every part of their life at this point so it just feels strange such a close family member we didn’t know existed has been around. Not only that but if they were ALSO in Starfleet and taking down the Borg or fighting in the Dominion war at the same time as Picard it would be strange we learn about this guy after the fact.

I think if Burnham was not SO high profile or that she wasn’t known to Spock like Sarek had a secret affair or something it would be easier to swallow. But the point is this show has turned Burnham into a celebrity in Star Trek no other major character had gotten on a show, certainly not after the first season. Everyone should now just know who this woman and her life is. She is now a decorated officer for helping to defeat Starfleet’s biggest enemy. She is probably just as known as Picard’s crew after BOBW. It’s silly to think no one would know her family history at this point.

Perhaps there is gonna be a devastating, universe shattering, timeline erasing event that removes Michael completely from the equation.

Spock did mention Burnham to Kirk and McCoy the Friday after Day of the Dove took place lol….we just didn’t see it on screen hehe. The same reason why Kirk and Spock never bothered to mention Archer, and the same reason why Decker butchered the history of ships named Enterprise to Ilia/vger probe in the TMP – new canon just keeps getting added on

But if he did start a war with the Klingons you can bet your arse that Spock would keep mum on the subject, so who knows, maybe he did!

The only problem is that Spock truly had no contact with his brother for years and neither did his family. He left them, perhaps it even was too painful for Spock to mention his brother. Michael on the other hand is Sarek’s favorite and she has a deep bond with his mother. And she is in starfleet!

Well that line Amanda Greyson says in Journey to Babel is open to interpretation. She says they haven’t spoken for years “as father and son”. The implication being they might have interacted professionally, but never sorted out their issues regarding Spock choosing Starfleet over the Vulcan Science Academy.


Good spot Ernst.

@Jemini The first of the official tie in novels suggested that Michael and Spock moved in different circles growing up due to their age difference and that they didn’t really keep in contact. The producers have suggested that they are working with the novelists and planting seeds for the series so if this is the case then the same logic you’ve applied to Spock not mentioning Sybok could also apply to Burnham. In fact given that Sybok is a biological relative it’s arguably stranger that he didn’t mention him.

Spock has ALWAYS kept secrets. It’s his nature. Michael is just the latest one.

Do you think this season is going to end with Sarek going over to a very tired looking Spock and laying on the fingers before saying, “Forget … ”

BTW, I agree that you wouldn’t necessarily have heard anything about her from Spock, given his taciturn nature.

“Taciturn”? Now, there’s a word you don’t hear every day!

I love it, but it hardly ever pops up in everyday conversation.

Spock doesn’t talk about his personal life. Truth is even Kirk, in spite of being someone he considered his friend, knew very little about Spock outside of their work. Think about it, what they knew of each other on a personal level? It isn’t just Spock either. Of course this may be a flaw of the series too because they made the characters too defined by their jobs, and forgot to give them more a dimension in terms of personal life. It was like their whole life was the enterprise. .but it isn’t realistic.
I think if kelvin Spock too has a brother and sister, Uhura probably would be the only character in the whole canon who has at least a chance to know about these things from Spock’s mouth.

that said, maybe their explanation in discovery will be that Michael didn’t exist for tos Spock because he either forgot about her, or something happened between them that he wanted to forget her, or she got into another reality and Sarek saving her never happened in prime Spock’s timeline. They are painting themselves into a corner, to be honest, with their trying to explain stuff that essentially is a retcon anyway.

Star Trek has a long history of explaining retcons. Also a long history of continuity errors that are never explained/corrected/addressed.

It just hit me today
Spock never mentioned Michael because somewhere down the line he endured some form of trauma.
As a result , Spock no longer remembers Michael.

He got a bad trauma from watching season one of Discovery

*yawn* If you’re so traumatized by watching Star Trek Discovery, perhaps you should re-examine your life choices and select television shows that cause you less agita?

Just a thought.

Just close your eyes and think of something else whilst we force our radical new ideas on an already established culture.

True. Season one was bad writing. If it would not be labeled “Star Trek” I would have stopped watching after 4 Episodes.

I’m not sure if I will get it annother shot.

I gotta be honest. If it wasn’t labeled “Star Trek” I wouldn’t have subscribed to CBS for that one month at all. And if it were on a more readily available platform, doubtful I would have watched it at all and if I had I very likely would have bailed after perhaps 4 episodes.

Spock never mentioned Michael because they’re desperate to reference TOS and just make stuff up.

Fans like you dislike Discovery because they’re desperate to hate anything new and different. See we can go round and round all day. Go home.

Well, this is another example of the showrunners having to jump through hoops to fit this prequel into established lore. It’s too late now, but if this show had been set post TUC or post TNG, this would never be an issue. And make no mistake, you’re entitled to your opinion as much as anyone else here, Calastir.

Every show has had to jump through hoops to fit into continuity, even the ones that were situated centuries after TOS. This is the nature of a largely connected universe spanning multiple series, decades, and writers.

Once again you try to make DSC out to be some exception, attacking it for something is not unique to this show.

It has kind of forced itself on a well established culture whilst they ask the audience to close their eyes and think of something else. Then people like you come along and enable such behaviour.

Agreed Danpaine!

It just feels ridiculous they are now trying to squeeze in this character in TOS canon like this. I accepted it but it still feels dumb and unnecessary.

And as you said, its now done so fighting about it is pointless. Maybe they will come up with a good explanation for it but it would’ve been better if they didn’t have to go down this silly route at all and why I hate prequels, for stunts JUST like this.

Seems as good a time as any to repeat this here. A) Discovery would have worked better being set post Nemesis. B) Burnham could have been raised by ANY Vulcan family and there would have been ZERO change in season 1. C) I think most of us get and understand why Burnham had the Spock connection. But that doesn’t mean we have to like it.

‘Fan’ is short for ‘fanatic’. I see a lot of that whenever I criticize Discovery here. Comments like “Go home”. Such warm and kind people, open to diversity.

Sadly that’s the internet Calastir. I wish people could just say how they feel without insulting others over their opinion. Unless people are being racist, homophobic, etc then people should say how they feel, especially over a TV show. TM has banned some of more offensive trolls as of late thankfully but it would be nice if there was an ignore button here and you don’t have to deal or see them at all. It’s a pain to deal with those people, trust me, we know!

Best thing to do is just post your thoughts with the more like minded people here or at least the ones that can have a debate without taking things personally. You get responses from other people who wants to turn everything into a petty fight or call you names, just keep scrolling down and don’t even bother. Thankfully there are way more good posters than bad ones here now at least.

Thanks, Tiger2. I’m not actually bothered, simply pointed out the hypocrisy of some fans. I enjoy a civil discussion whenever I can.

OK good to know! I just don’t want to see people here or any message board feel they are being run off because they have to deal with people who always want to name call or start silly fights over an opinion. TM actually has very few of them thankfully and especially lately but there are still some around. It’s nice I no longer personally have to avoid certain posters anymore since they been banned but I imagine others still do and why it’s best to have an ignore button but I guess the format doesn’t allow it.

But as long as you weren’t bothered.

Or made a Captain Sulu series, where characters like Spock or Kirk could appear without being shoehorned into the stories.

I’ve always felt the Captain Sulu series had severe merit and should have been done… Back in the day. I think it too late now. Unless you want to recast everyone. Although something tells me John Cho would be up for it….

They could still do something like that but yes it would probably be new actors. But I can see AA doing something like that easily and I think a lot of us suspect Pike and Spock may end up getting their own show as well if they are a big enough hit on Discovery or the subscriptions get a lot higher due to their presence.

I’m actually convinced one of the other shows we heard about like Starfleet Academy will have a TOS character on it. I just feel that’s the way these new guys running Trek thinks and that they will figure out a way to have a known character in a new show like we are getting with Picard soon.

Wow, a Star Trek show desperate to reference another Star Trek show. Guess that’s every show after TOS…

That was a ridiculous comment.

Yeah, “just make stuff up.” THAT’S WHAT TELEVISION IS. They’re all just making stuff up to fit into the franchise. I get that this is retconning that doesn’t sit well with fans, but Trek has been retconning stuff since the 60s. Every show has had to retcon events to make the different stories make sense with each other. Since 1987 it’s been hard to write Trek without contradicting SOMETHING. There have been continuity errors within a series, within a story arch, heck even within EPISODES that required retcons like this later to make nitpicking fans happy.

But somehow when DSC needs to retcon something to tell THEIR story it’s some capitol offense.

Retconning little things…fine. Needing to retcon nearly the entire show because its a failed reboot and they still insist it isn’t…not so good. Arrogant, spiteful people.

“Yes!!! Oh my gosh! We’re just so happy to have her … I mean, she’s a living legend.”

Um… no, actually not. I hate this exaggeration. Everybody in Hollywood is so great, so beloved, gifted, highly talented, etc.

Well, she IS one of the most revered actresses of Hong Kong cinema – that’s no exaggeration. Helluva stuntwoman too.

Actually, she is a legend, especially in the Hong Kong action cinema genre. You should check out some of her Hong Kong films like Yes, Madam and In the Line of Duty. She was also one of the rare Asian Bond girls.

What is “Hong Kong”?

Because she died, is that where this is heading. Or maybe the timeline is altered by TOS and she never existed.

Or maybe both. Michael dying/never existing by the time of TOS would be the easiest remedy to these questions.

Did Burnham cause her parents to die? I never got that. I thought her parents got killed during a Klingon attack, but was that because of her?

She and her parents were supposed to be on a vacation to Mars, but Michael begged her parents to postpone the trip 3 more days so she could see a star go super nova, or something. The Klingons attacked the outpost when she and her family should have been away.

Really? Where does that come from? The novels? I got confused in one of the early episodes because it makes it appear in her vision of the Katra transfer from Sarek like the attack occurred at a Vulcan learning center. I don’t recall her explaining that piece of history about the Mars vacation, but I’ve only watched the show through once.

It was in the season finale. She tells the story to Tyler.

The attack on the Vulcan learning center happened after her parents were killed and was an attack by Vulcan extremists.

“Oh my gosh!” – Gee whiz, I say!

Just another troll on another Wednesday.

I’m not “trolling”, for crying out loud! Just… having a giggle.

How many times Scotty mentions his sister?
How many times Kirk mentions his brother?
How many times Mccoy mentions his daughter?
How many times Sulu mentions his daughter?

How many times JFK mentions his sister?
How many times Hermann Göring mentions his brother?

How many brothers are the Brothers Grimm?

“How many times Mccoy mentions his daughter?” That one’s funny. I know he has a daughter named Joanna, but I have absolutely no idea when or even IF he mentioned her on screen. I have a feeling that’s the sort of “osmotic canon” that seeped into common fan knowledge via some script excerpts that probably did the rounds in the seventies.

D.C. Fontana wrote an episode about Joanna for Trek’s third season, which was taken out of her hands and rewritten into what became “The Way to Eden.” That was an awful show, to be sure, but to be honest I never got the impression that the original was some kind of a lost masterpiece either. The TOS Writer’s Guide mentions that McCoy is divorced and has a daughter, but aside from that single line in Trek 2009 I don’t think it’s otherwise been referenced onscreen.

There was a Brad Ferguson novel called CRISIS ON CENTAURUS that includes her as a character. I think he is one of the guys who had one or more novels seriously messed with by Pocket after turning it in. Memorable mainly because the Enterprise comes down out of orbit to hover above Kirk’s home in the A. Centauri system (not THAT memorable, haven’t thought about it this century.)

Messed with, huh? I didn’t know that.

The main thing I remember about that novel after all these years is that it opens with a Tellarite ambassador arguing with a balky American Express ATM that has swallowed his credit card. It was actually kind of a funny scene, if anachronistic. ATMs and American Express credit cards in the 23rd century? Really?

Now your comment makes me wonder whether American Express paid Pocket Books for a little product placement.

I don’t remember the ATM thing, but you’ve got me interested! Now that I think of it, the book Pocket messed with was one of those ‘giant’ trek novels. FLAG FULL OF STARS, maybe (they did the same with PROBE), the one where they have Decker and use the detached refitted saucer down in San Fran to chase somebody up into space? I think he actually put his version up online for awhile. (man I barely remember this stuff now, but for about 15 years, late 70s to early 90s, I was all about trek novels, even the bad ones.)

Is that it? I had also heard there was a story outline involving McCoy’s daughter and Kirk getting kinda close to the point where it tests the Kirk-Bones friendship. But I thought it was a potential season 4 story.

Onscreen reference is delivered by McCoy in TAS’s “The Survivor”

Ah yes, guess that’s what I was sorta kinda half-remembering.

Both Sonequa and Anthony Rapp used the term “long game” to describe how Discovery will reconcile with canon. That implies to me that there are some talking points the producers have given the actors to use. I am curious exactly how that long game will play out and if is for both story and visual discrepancies. I have high hopes that it will be very cool and worth the wait!

That implies to me that Discovery is having a difficult time with canon. Especially when they first said it would be dealt with by the end of S1 and later pushed back to be dealt with in S2. It tells me it is very possible the showrunners were not considering canon very much when they put the show together. Perhaps counting the quality to be better than it ended up being. (If the show was good, the canon inconsistencies would be lessened)

“Long game” = “keep paying for CBSAA” to me, but I agree it will be interesting to see what they come up with to address reconciling with the time period they’ve chosen.

I completely disagree. I don’t think anyone is going to keep paying just to see how it fits into canon.

No, “long game” = “we don’t feel the need to explain everything in one episode. We’ll get around to each discrepancy when it makes sense for the story.”

I agree. To quote Star Trek Online, all will be revealed at “the proper place at the proper time.”


I love her. Some people might have complaints about Michael the character – which as she hinted and I felt will be a much more adjusted and ‘lived in’ character by the time the series ends – but Sonequa the actress is such a joy.

I agree. Spock is a fool; I’d love to have her as a big sister!

Initially, she was not my favorite character, but I’ve been rewatching the series again the last few days and enjoy her much more now knowing where the story leaves us at the end of the season.

If season 2 treats the personal redemption as deeply as season 1 treated her professional and interpersonal redemption look for Burnham to forgive herself off camera and it’s done by episode 3.

Also, I honestly do not care why Spock never mentioned Burnham. We all already know. It has already been established that Spock has never felt obliged to reveal personal things even to his closest friends. ie, Sybok and his parents. Anything beyond that and it starts to fall into the “unneeded information” category. Like the Enterprise episodes explaining the smooth head Klingons.

I just hope the writers mention Sybok. Regardless of what one might think of Star Trek V, that film DID happen, so Spock and Michael have a brother. What’s interesting is that Sarek has been an awful father to all three of them. This is something that the writers should explore.

I would like to see a Sybok mention as well.

I always thought Travis Fimmel from Vikings could make a good younger Sybok if the producers decide to cast the character for Discovery.

Discovery does NOT need to reveal why Spock never mentioned Michael Burnham! We all know by now that Spock never talked about any of his family until they showed up on set one day. If he ever did talk about them, it was probably when the cameras weren’t rolling! Yes I’m being silly but no sillier than this persistant canonical debate!

Oh, good.
I’ve been waiting for 30 years to find out why Spock never mentioned his sister Michael.
Oh, wait. No I haven’t.
No one wants yet another Spock rehash.

I do! He is hands down my favorite Trek character. If done well, I’d love to see what he was up to in this time period.

Might we see the accident that neurologically destroys Captain Pike and condemning him to a wheelchair? Might this accident have caused Spock to forget certain aspects of his life?
I think we will eventually see this in Discovery considering canon. Is Pike really present at Kirk’s swearing in ceremony, or is it just hearsay? I would love to see this on Discovery. That’s what makes the series so interesting: It’s ability to tell the stories that, till now were never completely told.

My theory for this is that Captain Pike is somehow wanted to be silenced by Section 31. Perhaps he figures out the true nature of “Captain” Georgiou and the “accident” is a ploy from Section 31 to silence Pike.

Never mentionned because not worth mentionning… such a weak and boring character. Please get rid of her…

She’s here to stay, hate to break it to you.

Indeed… bad casting call from the get go. Now they have to bring characters out of nowhere to carry this show with solid actors like Anson Mount. Michelle Yeoh and Jason Isaacs carried the series last year in the same spirit.

Issacs was the only reason to keep watching the show last year. Until he wasn’t.

Might as well ask why Sarek never mentioned Michael either. Specifically I’m thinking of his TNG episode where he puts part of his katra in Picard. Picard breaks down crying while reliving Sarek’s memories, eventually mentioning both Amanda and Spock and how much he loves them. But not Michael. Now this is a scene where Michael absolutely should have been brought up. I can’t think of any explanation why she wouldn’t have been other than the obvious real world one that she hadn’t been invented yet. This is just the kind of stuff that’s going to happen when you make prequels.

Nice example, good point, Zinc. Unless somehow Sarek’s memory is to be wiped of her existence somehow (which could be interesting if done right). There really was no reason to give Spock a long-lost half-sister, except for attracting subs to a new channel. Just having Michael raised by anonymous Vulcans could have expressed the struggles within the character properly, I think. Anyway, it is what it is. Hoping for the best going forward, under the circumstances.

Actually now that I think about it, that could be an interesting way to create a small connection between Discovery and the new Picard show. Since both both Michael and Picard have shared Sarek’s katra is it possible that Picard could have some of Michael’s memories as well? Perhaps there could be a macguffin in Discovery that for whatever reason they decide needs to be forgotten about and hidden. Then in the future it becomes important again and someone makes the connection that Picard is the only one that can find it. Just a thought.

The easy answer is that Michael is a retcon. Plain and simple. We all know this, it’s not a problem. The only people who make it a problem are fans who already hate Discovery and are just looking for more complaints.

After all, why wasn’t the Khitomer Conference, a major event in the alliance between the Klingons and Federation ever mentioned before Season 4, even in episodes that centered on Klingons and their alliance? Because it hadn’t been written yet.

Of course, one could also simply point out that Picard didn’t mention Sybok either, and Sybok was Sarek’s child by blood, unlike Burnham.

I wish you would stop generalizing everyone like this. Not everyone who hates this idea ‘hate’ Discovery nor looking for any reason to complain about it. Yes shows pulling retcons is a very common thing, especially in our overdriven franchise world we have now. But you can still go overboard with it and adding a sister 50 YEARS LATER just feels like nothing more than pandering to TOS fans and to give them a reason to bring in TOS characters, that’s it. There is no reason story wise Burnham needs to be Spock’s brother, none that I could see. It certainly didn’t feel that way first season.

But they did it, so you either accept it or you don’t. But look, the truth is this is WHY this show should’ve just been called a reboot which frankly that’s all it is. Everyone knows that. If you made it a reboot you don’t HAVE to explain how in 50 years of canon someone so close to Spock and now famous on her own due to the Klingon war has never been mentioned just like no one in the Kelvin films have to explain why Sulu is gay. BECAUSE it’s a reboot so they have more freedom to do things like that.

I really really wish someone would just come out and say it. All these problems goes away tomorrow and it would be less ammo for the ‘haters’ right?

At this point, they have gone for two years saying it’s prime and NOT a reboot. They have little option but to bunker down, hold their position and do their best in the upcoming season (or more) to repair the inconsistencies they wouldn’t had to deal with had they admitted reboot from the start.

You’re taking a far too aggressive posture with the producers. They are not attempting to repair anything. They just know that fans such as on this site will never stop giving them grief until they explain why every wrinkle in Ethan Peck’s forehead doesn’t match Leonard Nimoy’s.

I’m not the one who insisted the show fit right in existing TOS canon when nearly everything besides the names Sarek, Spock and Enterprise showed otherwise. And I guess you aren’t paying attention to the articles and quotes by people involved in the show. They are going out of their way to try and come up with ways to explain the inconsistencies between STD and the rest of Trek. Just check out the lame explanation for the lack of Klingon hair in S1 compared to it re-appearing in S2 for one example.

And yes… The bulk of the canon complaints would cease if it were just called a reboot from the beginning as it would take ammo away from those potential complaints. Not 100%. There will always be someone who complains about Ethan Peck’s wrinkle.

Yeah no matter how you feel about the show, they are CLEARLY fixing or changing things due to fan feedback. I mean this is just obvious. But its not like its the first Star Trek show where this has happened, most have done this to a degree, certainly TNG, DS9 and ENT. Those shows all got pretty big overhauls based on fan feedback in later seasons. Like DIS, ENT probably got it the most but sadly it didn’t happen until third and fourth season when it was probably too late for that show.

The great thing about DIS is that they are bending over backwards this soon but I suspect because DIS viewership is VERY low compared to those other shows when they started and they probably fear many won’t re-sign to AA unless the show gets retooled or fit more in to the prime universe.

But I don’t know why people can’t just accept this or see this as some kind of insult? Most shows get retooled when things aren’t working and like I said most of Trek has anyway. This is a GOOD thing. They are listening to the fanbase and trying to make them happy instead of doubling down on bad ideas. Its WHY I have higher hopes for season 2 now.

It can be a double edge sword. I personally think it good that the fan base is being listened to regarding the look and feel of things. In THIS instance. (In the the vast majority of cases I normally think it better that the artist NOT listen to the audience) However history has shown that when shows get retooled on the fly like this it usually means its on the way out. The only monkey in this wrench is the fact that it’s a streaming show. That is why the retool is happening so quickly. And why it very well could survive such retooling.

People tend to forget that he first two years of TNG were terrible.
But it got retooled and improved a lot.

“adding a sister 50 YEARS LATER just feels like nothing more than pandering to TOS fans and to give them a reason to bring in TOS characters, that’s it. ”

And as a fan that’s only a problem if you want it to be one.

“his is WHY this show should’ve just been called a reboot which frankly that’s all it is.”

No and no. Don’t present your opinions as fact.

“I really really wish someone would just come out and say it. All these problems goes away tomorrow and it would be less ammo for the ‘haters’ right?”

Except that it’s NOT a reboot, and none of the problems go away if they say that. Haters will hate regardless of what DSC is.

Well it basically looks, feels and acts like a reboot so why I feel it basically was designed as one, just without calling it that. But I’m pretty sure that’s exactly how Fuller saw it when he was creating the show. I mean look at it lol. Nothing about it suggests it actually takes place in the TOS era. Literally nothing! The guy changed every major facet of the universe.

He was the one who insisted for example the Klingons be bald. That literally goes against fifty years of canon. Its one thing if you just say you want some bald Klingons in there, its another when they are basically genetically bald which WAS the case according to the guy who designed them.

It’s also why I think he gave Spock a sister because he wanted to just change up the entire dynamic in general.

You tell me how does it NOT feel like a reboot then? Give me an example.

I think if Fuller was still around we would NOT be seeing these changes like the TOS uniforms, Klingons getting hair etc. Maybe if the studio put their foot down but Fuller clearly wanted this show to feel like it was in it’s own universe even if they called it ‘prime’. And probably why it was a good idea he got the boot end of the day.

I think the writers are too worried about some of the naysayers. IMO no explanation is really needed. He didn’t mention his half brother Sybok nor did he even let Kirk and McCoy (his closest friends) know that one of the most decorated Vulcan Ambassadors was his Father – until they of course met him on board the Enterprise. In other words, no explanation needed. Anyway it will be interesting to hear what the Disco writers come up with.

100% agreed. Just tell your stories and let the gripers gripe. They’ll still watch anyway. And if they don’t, they’ll just attract new fans because no matter what the show’s diehard critics would say to the contrary, DSC is high quality television.

If I were a producer in fact I’d introduce intentionally-contradictory elements just to get people roiled up. It gives me so much joy to watch nitpickers twist in the wind.

The sole focus on Michael is why this show is garbage. It needs to be small morality plays told from the perspective of the whole bridge crew.