Spoilers Johnathan Frakes is spoiling stuff again (Season 2)

[urbandefault]

I fail to see the point in watching a show one doesn't like, only to complain endlessly about how much one doesn't like it, listing all of the perceived flaws in said show. It seems like a waste of precious time, and in this case, money.

If I don't like a show I don't watch it. The End.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Anyone watching Michael Burnham as a character without the fallback of sourcing other Trek characters as what? Smokescreens? Strawmen? Seriously the development of Michael er... as a standalone character is NOT dependent on any other character. If you went into watching Discovery as your first Trek you wouldn't be calling out Kirk or other characters to distract the fact Burnham is a Mary Sue. She is that on her own. She is a creation that requires the writer to match her up in a fight with Kol only to beat him. To effortless be Georgiou's favourite both Georgiou's. Lorca's favourite the interest of Ash and every key player she encountered. To be the famed killer of the Torch Bearer, to take one look at Stamet's spore drive and to instantly figure out what to do to make it better. To flit from one universe to another coming up with all the answers and to get (as we all knew she would) a star moment to revel in her Mary Sueness at the end.

Well, that was a rambling mess. But I'm gonna try and parse it.
She beats Kol because she's the hero, Not because she's a Mary Sue. Pointing that out is not a distraction, it's being aware of thousands of years of heroic literature. Same for the other stuff.

 

[Refuge]

Nice. Here's a thought don't read my posts if you don't want to figure them out.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Nice. Here's a thought don't read my posts if you don't want to figure them out.

It was a slog, but I got through.

 

[Refuge]

It was a slog, but I got through.

You were hanging on every word.

 

[Nerys Myk]

You were hanging on every word.

Yeah, that's part of the problem. The hang ups.

 

[Refuge]

You know Kol should have crushed her like a bug. Just saying.

 

[Ithekro]

Yes. But what about William T. Riker?

 

[Nerys Myk]

You know Kol should have crushed her like a bug. Just saying.

You're a few decades late to start worrying about that stuff. Smaller women than Burnham have taken out larger men than Kol. It's a trope that isn't going away anytime soon. At least in Burnham's case it was a game of keep away.

 

[Refuge]

You're a few decades late to start worrying about that stuff. Smaller women than Burnham have taken out larger men than Kol. It's a trope that isn't going away anytime soon. At least in Burnham's case it was a game of keep away.

It actually sadden/frustrates me to see it so often. It on the one hand empowers us women and on the other lies to us. I know full well that in most examples of a bigger human being (man or woman) against a more slight one, the odds are the bigger one will dominate.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

Mary Sue and Mary Sue! What is Mary Sue?!!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Can mods please split this discussion so the current thread focuses on Frakes and Spock? It's getting absurdly ridiculous.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Every DISCO thread turns into a thread about canon and Mary Sues. That's just science.

 

[fireproof78]

NuKirk graduates from the Academy in three years, goes from Cadet to Captain in one mission, and is offered a promotion to Admiral less than five years later. NuKirk isn't generally called a Mary Sue. And the same people who think NuKirk is the Ultimate go on complaining that Burnham sucks.

I like both of them...

I hope Season 2 is even more about Burnham

I fail to see the point in watching a show one doesn't like, only to complain endlessly about how much one doesn't like it, listing all of the perceived flaws in said show. It seems like a waste of precious time, and in this case, money.

If I don't like a show I don't watch it. The End.

That is way too simple

 

[cooleddie74]

Calling out Kirk or Red Shirt extra number three does not remove any of Michaels's Mary Sue qualities.

That's not an answer. Tell us why Michael Burnham - whether or not a fan likes her - is a Mary Sue while James T. Kirk - a man whose career would make James Bond seem like a run-of-the-mill hero with a knack for running into megalomaniacs with underground lairs and nuclear weapons - isn't one.

 

[cooleddie74]

Supposedly due to license issues, nothing movie-related can be referenced in Discovery, so Sybok won't be in the show.

Well. My pain runs deep.

I guess I'll have to share it with you guys.

 

[Refuge]

Tell us why Michael Burnham - whether or not a fan likes her - is a Mary Sue while James T. Kirk - a man whose career would make James Bond seem like a run-of-the-mill hero with a knack for running into megalomaniacs with underground lairs and nuclear weapons - isn't one.

I have little motivation in evaluating James Bond or even Kirk in context of a show that has yet to show either. That being said it seems to be a deciding 'Mary Sue' factor here for many (??). Kirk is obviously a more rounded character given we know him better. His 'Mary Sue' to flawed 'hero' ratio is based on many more episodes and movies. In gasp, fairness to Michael he is going to have a better balance sheet because of that. In my personal assessment Kirk is flawed in character, he makes mistakes but he is also guided by wanting to do the right thing and has achieved that as well. I truly do not think of him as a Mary Sue but as a simple hero (albeit one without a perfect record).

James Bond is not my cup of tea. Though of all the Bonds the ones with humour seem more human, something Kirk possesses too. Michael does not, I might add. Perhaps that makes a character easier to relate to. I would put Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan in that category.

I really don't know if Bond is a Mary Sue. His dead wives and girlfriends and fall from grace might disqualify him but he is written to be really good at lucky escapes, driving fast cars and killing bad guys.

Then we have Michael Burnham. She's humourless. That's doesn't make her a Mary Sue. Nor did the premise for her journey into full scale Mary Sue predictability (her mutiny because she decided she knew best). However, from the moment she was sentenced for that mutiny she faced no consequence. Embraced into the bosom of 'Discovery', favoured by its Captain, given practically every away mission, the best damn science specialist ever - better than Stamets, pursued by Ash, loved by the Georgiou/s, victor of T'Kuvma and Kol, Captain of mirror Shenzhou, and all out saviour of the universe/s. It just went on and on. Did I mention it was predictable? Mary Sue's are predictable. They are written that way. They are harder to relate to and like because you know they are golden.

Let me ask you a question. Does finding examples of other potential Mary Sues take away the consideration that Michael might be viewed as one all in her own right?

 

[cooleddie74]

There are lots of things about Michael I find poorly-written and disappointing, but I'm still having trouble categorizing her as a textbook Mary Sue who is simply in the plot to save the day after emerging from humble origins. Of the character's many problems I don't think being an utterly predictable person who always emerges looking like a hero is one of them.

We can quibble over there being few real consequences of being convicted of mutiny and sentenced to imprisonment and on that we can agree, but it's not like Michael has a had a free ride the entire series thus far. She's been called out for making the wrong choices more than once and at the end of the day Stamets or even MU Lorca were responsible for saving the day more often than Michael.

 

[dahj]

Every DISCO thread turns into a thread about canon and Mary Sues. That's just science.

But is it Prime science?

 

[cooleddie74]

Does light cast lens flares? Then it's not.

 

[dahj]

Does light cast lens flares?

About 25% of the time.