I do agree with that point. As much as I think Discovery lost a small part of its uniqueness with Burnham becoming captain, I do think being further removed from other Trek's offered something potentially new.
Seasons 1-2 or 3-4?
- Thread starter BlueStuff
- Start date
We can try, but it never seems to stick...
Apparently so, because you've said it about 500 times like the dying mantra of an alien computer Kirk has talked into a logic spiral, ignoring all evidence that contradicts your preferred narrative along the way, and occasionally punctuating it with a "Think about it..." as if that constitutes an actual argument.
I'm half-convinced you're a poorly-programmed bot sent here to try and stir up false controversy with really bad examples to make your point.
How did you get through Season 2?
Sorry, the post previously seemed to imply that Lorca was the only redeeming value...
Sisko is quite literally an accessory to two murders and very few fans seem to have a problem with that given 'in the pale moonlight' is considered one ds9's best episodes.
And remember how Kirk was lionized by many people:
Also used chemical weapons to displace civilians, and joked about it.
The fact that they didn't specify that there weren't any causalities (as 90s TV usually did in situations like that) always made me think that people might have died on that planet.
Lorca as a broken man captain was REALLY a fantastic concept. A pity they ruined everything making him a Terran.
You don't get it.
You are reasoning is like the arguments of a child on a playground.
The character of "Mary Sue" from the 1973 parody short story "A Trekkie's Tale" is a persiflage, a satirically exaggeration, of characters from countless fanfiction stories.
A character does not need to 100% match the satirically exaggerated characteristics of "Mary Sue" from the 1973 short story to be a "Mary Sue"-type character.
If a character had to 100% match the satirically exaggerated characteristics of the "1973 Mary Sue" to be called a "Mary Sue" there would be no "Mary Sue"-type character, because no character does 100% match the satirically exaggerated characteristics of the "1973 Mary Sue".
A "Mary Sue" character only needs to match some characteristics of the "Mary Sue"-type characters from the stories that "A Trekkie's Tale" satirized.
It's not about the 1973 short story.
It's about the stories the 1973 short story parodied.
Do you get it now?
Kirk wasn’t lionized w/in TOS. He was young and just one of the captains.
Later iterations of Trek, for fanwankery, lionized him. They should have extolled some captain we never heard of. In DSC didn’t Saru study the great captains and they were all ones we knew? Small universey, imho, but that’s how it rolls.
Later iterations of Trek, for fanwankery, lionized him. They should have extolled some captain we never heard of. In DSC didn’t Saru study the great captains and they were all ones we knew? Small universey, imho, but that’s how it rolls.
I get that I knew a definition of "Mary Sue" and didn't see anything else until 2017 when people like you, Ferengi, and Kane Steel started changing the meaning to fit your arguments. "Mary Sue" to you means whatever you want it to mean.
You have no set standard because you keep moving goalposts to fit your purposes. Much like you cherry pick data elsewhere to fit your purposes. As such, you're someone who argues in bad faith and not worth my time. We can't talk about anything when we don't even agree about the basics.
It's also not even the original topic of this thread.
Last edited:
I went with 1-2. I really enjoyed the season 1 headfucks with Lorca and Ash not being who they appeared to be, and I like watching them team up with Pike and Spock against Control. Not to say I didn't enjoy 3-4. I do like Book.
Never want to hear the term Mary Sue again. Always just sounds like the He Man Woman Hater Club hyping themselves up.
Never want to hear the term Mary Sue again. Always just sounds like the He Man Woman Hater Club hyping themselves up.
Agree, a little part of me dies inside each time I see the words “Mary Sue”. It’s an infuriatingly lazy way of making an argument. It’s also pretty ironic given that Roddenberry actually wanted all his characters to be basically flawless when he advanced his “evolved humans” schtick somewhere between the end of TOS and beginning of TNG.
Would Picard be a Mary Sue?
He's a male character created in the '80s, so probably not. A Mary Sue, going by these people, must be a female character who they don't like and was created in this century.
Similar threads
