Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 1x13 - "What's Past Is Prologue"

[Long Syntax]

Probably because others agree. I've found plenty, plenty of YT reviews and videos on why the Mary Sue Burnham character sucks. Just do a simple search and you'll see the criticisms are valid.

I don't necessarily disagree that the character of Burnham, well, sucks. That doesn't mean SMG does - in fact for me she came as a blank slate because I never saw her in anything. I'm still not sure about SMG's portrayal of Burnham. Could the character have been salvaged by a better actress, or was the writing so poor that no performance could have overcome the crappy source material? I tend to believe that it's the latter - writing just was all over the place and sub-par.

Just curious, why all the super negative attention on Burnham when there's plenty of criticism to go around?

 

[Tomalak]

Or maybe some are just overly defensive and insecure about her because of her race/gender. That kind of grouping of individuals is a two-way street.

I've praised previous female characters in Trek already, but Mary Sue Burnham doesn't deserve the same treatment. The divisiveness on her isn't a gender/race issue. It really comes down to the characterization, writing, performance and direction of the series that the producers are pushing for.

I guess there are other characters you don't like, and maybe you also call them Mary Sue at every opportunity and have a history of using them as your avatar. Just seems a bit odd. Like you've got an agenda. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the impression you're conveying.

 

[Kane_Steel]

You know those searches are based on what you watch/read/search for, right? They come up first for you because you like them. It's built in confirmation bias.

Not really. I don't like or dislike the videos. Even when I search Star Trek Discovery from a work computer without logging into my YT account, Jaawin and Lore Reloaded show up as the top hits.

And you should see LoreReloaded's rants on STD. It's brutal. Actually I wouldn't recommend you watching it.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Yeah, people who have no clue what Mary Sue actually means have hijacked it to suit their (usually misogynistic) needs, but I guess "evolved" is one way to describe it.

Gender should never be an excuse for subpar writing and characterization, and forced expository dialogue used to elevate a mediocre.character.

Okay? Was that actually something that was in dispute? You seem to be under the mistaken impression that what you say represents some kind of objective truth, whereas the people arguing with you would probably contend that they don't feel Burnham's character (or Rey in Star Wars to address your other example) is being used as an excuse for subpar writing and characterization, or that they are "mediocre characters."

You're just going to have to learn to deal with other people not sharing your opinion. It'll probably go a long way toward not beating this "Burnham is a Mary Sue" dead horse of yours into the ground any further. We get it. Point made.

Also, not sure what that had to do with anything in my post about people not using the term Mary Sue correctly, but you do you.

 

[Kane_Steel]

I guess there are other characters you don't like, and maybe you also call them Mary Sue at every opportunity and have a history of using them as your avatar. Just seems a bit odd. Like you've got an agenda. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the impression you're conveying.

You shouldn't go fishing today... you aren't going to catch anything.

 

[Spot261]

You shouldn't go fishing today... you aren't going to catch anything.

Oh look, a character who is unreasonably capable and heroic, having only the most trivial character flaws and none of Michael Burnhams weaknesses or vulnerability.

 

[Kane_Steel]

Okay? Was that actually something that was in dispute? You seem to be under the mistaken impression that what you say represents some kind of objective truth, whereas the people arguing with you would probably contend that they don't feel Burnham's character (or Rey in Star Wars to address your other example) is being used as an excuse for subpar writing and characterization, or that they are "mediocre characters."

You're just going to have to learn to deal with other people not sharing your opinion. It'll probably go a long way toward not beating this "Burnham is a Mary Sue" dead horse of yours into the ground any further. We get it. Point made.

Also, not sure what that had to do with anything in my post about people not using the term Mary Sue correctly, but you do you.

Like I said, your definition is outdated. I know I mention Youtube a lot but it's a good way to see who is actually saying what, and a lot of viewers today (of various genres of film and tv) use the 'Mary Sue' term in a modern context to describe an intentionally OP character. Plenty of videos on this related to Star Wars and other franchises on YT (not just made by White males, lol).

So the term is no longer something exclusive to niche fanfiction circles. It certainly bears relevance to the Burnham situation.

 

[Tosk]

When Discovery was traveling back through the network, their was a strange scene in the transporter room.

Burnham and Georgia already left the platform and then a second later they got materialized again.

Another hint or just some tricky cut of the film material?

Hmm, I'm not seeing what you're seeing. They beam in, the Discovery attacks the Charon, they enter the network, and we see Burnham and Georgiou rocked around, they crouch,

That said, there are "time effects" going on during the trip, as we see sparks both falling and going back up.

 

[Kane_Steel]

Oh look, a character who is unreasonably capable and heroic, having only the most trivial character flaws who has none of Michael Burnhams weaknesses or vulnerability.

Thomas Riker? Haha. You may have to rethink that assessment.

 

[Spot261]

Thomas Riker? Haha. You may have to rethink that assessment.

Nope, he failed in his mission, but he was Riker in every sense.

 

[Amaris]

I see that you're as articulate as you're scientifically literate.

What I said is true. Your multiverse articles have absolutely nothing to do with your mushroom articles.

No. I had actually written out about 5 paragraphs, but then I realized what I was doing and stopped. Nothing I say is going to matter. You weren't just against my post, you're actively hostile to it, and me as well. You've made up your mind about what is and isn't Star Trek, and are ready to apply firm scientific principles to it, but only this show, apparently, because previous series were rigorously scientific.

I will make a recommendation, though, and ask that you read Mycelial Running by Dr. Paul Stamets. It is not only fascinating, but illuminating, and opens an entirely new world on our understanding of mycology and the backbone of the planet's organic communication network.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Like I said, your definition is outdated. I know I mention Youtube a lot but it's a good way to see who is actually saying what, and a lot of viewers today (of various genres of film and tv) use the 'Mary Sue' term in a modern context to describe an intentionally OP character. Plenty of videos on this related to Star Wars and other franchises on YT (not just made by White males, lol).

So the term is no longer something exclusive to niche fanfiction circles. It certainly bears relevance to the Burnham situation.

Well shit, if some randos on YouTube say it, it must be true. I withdraw my argument in light of this new evidence.

I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Locutus.

 

[SJGardner]

Nope, he failed in his mission, but he was Riker in every sense.

I loved how Kira even called him out for being so much of an unflawed model Starfleet officer even when a leader of the Maquis that the very thought of not using sanctioned Starfleet tactics and regulations was alien to him.

 

[Butters]

Well I don’t know what to think about this episode.

I suppose I enjoyed it, which is the main thing, but Star Trek: Sliders? I dunno.

Not captivated by the current direction but the minor characters got some screen time.

 

[Rahul]

Burnham certainly IS a kind of Mary Sue.
Despite her f*cking up big time in the pilot - what she did was always the right choice, she was just wrong about the specifics on how to proceed. Since then, she has been shown to be a master at... everything:

-Chemical/Physical science, hand-to-hand-combat, outsmarting everyone else, creature care, coming up with clever new plans on the spot, always taking the ethically correct choice... she's perfect. And everybody is always telling it her - Georgiou (both!), Lorca, Saru, ... everyone. Also, everyone is always falling for her to such a degree they're sacrificing their own plans just to 'get her' - both Tyler and Lorca get foiled by how awesome they think she is!

But you know who else has all those characteristics?
James T. Kirk.
Will Riker. Sisko. Janeway. Hell, even Archer at times.

Yes. Burnham is a Mary Sue. 100%, undeniable. But you know what? It's a Trek staple. The main character always is. The only difference seems to be that women (Janeway, Burnham) get critizised extra hard for it.
So far, it doesn't bother me. But if someone is put off by it, that is completely justifiable, because she is a Mary Sue. But by FAR not as much as the ultimate Trek hero: Kirk.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Like I said, your definition is outdated. I know I mention Youtube a lot but it's a good way to see who is actually saying what, and a lot of viewers today (of various genres of film and tv) use the 'Mary Sue' term in a modern context to describe an intentionally OP character. Plenty of videos on this related to Star Wars and other franchises on YT (not just made by White males, lol).

So the term is no longer something exclusive to niche fanfiction circles. It certainly bears relevance to the Burnham situation.

No.

It means that the people using the term are morons who have no idea what the term actually means. Like people who use the word Ironic to describe random coincidences, like Alanis Morrisette did in that song that one time.

 

[Burning Hearts of Qo'nos]

It's just bizarre to me that you can write that sentence and frame it as a good thing.

Yeah, I get that. But liking the show for what it is has been more fun than picking it apart and hating it. I mean, I still pick it apart and think, 'well it'd be nice if they did this or that' or 'this would feel more like Star Trek if they had...' but in the end, what I've been presented with has been satisfying, entertaining, and fun. An okay Star Trek show is much better than no Star Trek at all.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Burnham certainly IS a kind of Mary Sue.
Despite her f*cking up big time in the pilot - what she did was always the right choice, she was just wrong about the specifics on how to proceed. Since then, she has been shown to be a master at... everything:

-Chemical/Physical science, hand-to-hand-combat, outsmarting everyone else, creature care, coming up with clever new plans on the spot, always taking the ethically correct choice... she's perfect. And everybody is always telling it her - Georgiou (both!), Lorca, Saru, ... everyone. Also, everyone is always falling for her to such a degree they're sacrificing their own plans just to 'get her' - both Tyler and Lorca get foiled by how awesome they think she is!

But you know who else has all those characteristics?
James T. Kirk.
Will Riker. Sisko. Janeway. Hell, even Archer at times.

Yes. Burnham is a Mary Sue. 100%, undeniable. But you know what? It's a Trek staple. The main character always is. The only difference seems to be that women (Janeway, Burnham) get critizised extra hard for it.
So far, it doesn't bother me. But if someone is put off by it, that is completely justifiable, because she is a Mary Sue. But by FAR not as much as the ultimate Trek hero: Kirk.

I think i may be a tiny bit in love with you right now.

Great post.

 

[gblews]

And does that weird green spore landing on Tilly at the end mean anything? Is she about to get pregnant like Troi in The Child?

On After Trek (#12), which for the first time, I highly recommend everyone watch, Ted Sullivan was asked about this and cryptically (and perhaps facetiously) replied, "we'll see in season 2" (paraphrasing).

Sad that you're so easily triggered. But I can recall multiple instances during the press junket where the producers mentioned the socio-political intentions with the series and what they were trying to push. They weren't shy about doing that.

Given that, sadly there's no way Jason Isaacs could have played a respectable authority figure, or even a hero.

I watched a good deal of the videos and read many of the interviews in the run-up to the show's premiere and I don't remember the producers or actors "pushing" the diversity on the show. I recall media members ASKING about the diversity and the cast and staff responding. I got the feeling that it would not have come up if the reporters and interviewers hadn't asked about it.

Yep, it appears that the days when the ultimate hero in Trek is always a white male are over.

I don't understand how Lorca could be smart enough to con everyone on the Discovery, but then suddenly turns into an idiot just in time to be bested by Burnham and MU Georgiou alone.

Oh wait, no, I do. It's because there's apparently no one in the writing room to shoot down bad ideas.

Really? I thought it was quite clear. Fooling the Discovery crew into thinking he was PU Lorca was simple, he looked exactly like PU Lorca and no one had the slightest suspicion that he was an imposter. And since Lorca had recently taken over the Discovery, no one could even compare the personalities.

The plan by Burnham may not go down as one of the most clever or original, but it was quite logical under the circumstances. The control to the shield protecting the thingy that was drawing power from the spore network was locate in the throne room. Burnham knew Lorca wanted her alive, so she could at least show her face there without it being instantly being blown off. Thus, she'd have a chance to get to the controls, especially if she brought Georgiou which would buy her time and create a necessary diversion.

Perhaps we should stop thinking of ourselves as being just so much smarter that the writing staff and maybe pay just a little bit closer attention to what is happening on screen. I'll just bet that that might clear up some of the perceived "plot holes" and "bad writing".

 

[Michael]

Not great.

Basically, yeah.

Definitely one of the lowpoints for me this season. So many things that didn't work for me at all. The effects, sets and fight scenes were nice and I'm glad this MU bullshit is finally over now, but the dialog was atrociously cringeworthy and the plot as predictable as my teenage fan fiction.

I didn't expect Michael to save Georgiou.

That and the “We're nine months into the future” are literally the only two things I didn't see coming in this episode. Don't know what to make of both of them, though. I mean, where could they go from here with what's essentially space Hitler? And the nine months thing pretty much guarantees that they will undo most or all of the war via time travel. Oh, how I marvel at the cleverness of the writers. Not.

the only thing i think this episode lack was how prime Disco crew change loyalties some what quick. Perhaps they need to get more proof their captain is not who they think before they actually saw Lorca on view screen telling them. but not a big problem.

Yeah, I agree, that was weird. He's their captain, but they immediately believe it when Burnham tells them he's a traitor. Yeah, right.

Meh. Despise what they did to Lorca. He could have been an interesting character in the PU but they had to turn him into a MU cartoon villain. THAT SUCKS.

I completely agree. It would have been interesting to have him be from the MU, but with noble motives or at the very least anything that's more creative than him being simply evil. This whole things completely undermines his character.

Bleah. I was really, really hoping for better.

I've lost faith in the writers.

Sums it up perfectly at this point. It just has become clear to me that I don't like what they are doing with the series and the characters. I hope it's only because of behind-the-scenes shenanigans at the start of production that the season has been all over the place and not because they're genuinely mediocre writers. Here's hoping season 2 will work much better.

One of the (comparably few) things I genuinely liked about this episode was we actually got to see the bridge crew who aren't main cast members speak a few lines and do things. In general I thought the scenes on the Discovery were much better in part because of this.

Yeah, I liked that as well. I enjoyed seeing more of Airiam and Owosekun. Kind of a shame, though, that it took them so long to get there. It also dawns on me how infinitely more interesting it would have been if Saru had been faced with the decision to mutiny against Lorca. His character would have come full circle from the pilot(s) and his “my friend” would have felt more earned.

I really wish Stamets had said, we "overshot by...150 years" as a Sovereign class came into view.

I would have been out right at that moment.

I think of all the "surprises" this season the only one that wasn't obvious to anyone over the age of 2 was the Mirror Phillipa going back to the prime universe - and what's up with that anyhow? We're supposed to believe space Hitler has turned over a new leaf? Puh-lease.

Oh God, yes. That was hard to swallow. In the scene where Georgiou and Lorca face off in that hallway I was suddenly overcome by the thought that I don't even know who I'm supposed to root for. I mean, both were despicable criminals. Why should I root for any of them to win this?