@General:
I can sort of see where the writers are going with Michael’s dual identities as a parable for today’s society, but we’ve basically spent 50 years with a Vulcan confronting his humanity. Now we have a human who’s too Vulcan?
In what way do you think it is a parable?
And I agree; the focus on Sarek and Spock (and Vulcans in general) as the primary vehicle for Trek’s exploration of humanity has become trite. Like you said it has been 50 years. Just like is happening with the new Star Wars films, I am getting concerned that Star Trek is shying away from telling any new stories. The actors have different names and faces and may be more diverse, but the characters and plots are all the same as they were 40 years ago.
TNG expanded admirably on the Spock-humanity theme (which is really the heart of Star Trek in my opinion) with Data. But even then Spock and Sarek were recurring characters in the show. To have them be so again here is leaning too much on a crutch. It may serve to connect a 2017 show to a 1967 show, but nobody that knows who Spock and Sarek are need that overt connection. And the people who don’t know who Sarek is wouldn’t notice the difference if he wasn’t there.
I just wonder where they are going with it. The human-Vulcan bit is a cop-out born of either playing it safe or trying to advertise overtly that ‘this is Star Trek’. I suppose this could be an attempt at the inverse of Spock; rather than a Vulcan (half human) who is constantly pushed to embrace emotion, we have a human (raised Vulcan) who is pushed to harness their emotion under logic. The pilot episode certainly made it obvious that Michael is something of a reactionary firebrand who does whatever she feels is right. I found her highly unlikable, particularly for being the main character. Seems odd that is what the writers are trying to foster, but if that was their intent it worked with me.
