Um, no. In point of fact, if Georgiou Prime had ignored Michael's advice and instead taken Saru's, T'Kuvma would not have been able to use the death of the Torchbearer or the Georgiou's use of the phrase "we come in peace" as propaganda to rally the rival Klingon Houses to his cause. It was, furthermore, Michael's idea to attempt to board the Ship of the Dead and capture T'Kuvma; had Georgiou Prime not listened to Michael's advice, she would likely have survived the battle with the rest of the crew. So, yes, Michael got her captain killed. If the character starts a war, as Michael did, then they are not a Mary Sue, because that is a profound failure. Michael was not unjustly blamed for starting the war -- her aggressive actions towards the Klingons, starting with killing the Torchbearer, directly feed into T'Kuvma's plan to go to war with the Federation. Are you talking about the tardigrade? That's just false. Michael's arc in S1 is one of redemption, not one of proving her superiority. You have, at best, severe problems comprehending the content of Star Trek: Discovery and a false understanding of a "textbook Mary Sue." A Mary Sue is not a female character who does things.
Also, I say again: In order for a character to be a Mary Sue, they have to be an author self-insert. If Michael is a Mary Sue, who is she an author self-insert for?
I'm glad Sci responded, so I wouldn't have to waste my time on a bunch of nonsense. You're late to the party. Take a hint.
I have not been able to find a reputable source saying that the sets were struck. It's entirely possible they were completely dismantled; more likely the secondary sets that are not being recycled to a new show were struck and the major sets put in storage, in case a new show is ordered.
Actually it has everything to do with it. Since an argument from those that claim that Burnham isn’t a Mary Sue is that she’s doing nothing different from white, male captain’s and criticism is because she’s a black female. And I pointed out that there was dislike with action hero Picard, just like there was dislike with action hero Burnham. Sometime criticism toward Burnham has nothing to do with her being a Mary Sue. It has to do with unpopular writing and portrayal of main characters, regardless of appearance. Sometime the critics are consistent, and there no “anti-woke” agenda at play. Yes, she is the protagonist. Yes, they were producing a show from her perspective, instead of the captain. At least for the first few seasons. It still doesn’t address why she was treated the way she was from Pike and Rillak. Since she’s not trying to make anyone feel incompetent. And isn’t different from historical captains, which Rilliak should be aware of. Or is the only one intervening to prevent a fight. Either the people around Burnham aren’t all there mentally and Burnham’s just normal. Or the people around Burnham are all of sound mind, and Burnham was written to be beyond excellent – a Mary Sue. And how many time do you need to see the rest of the crew being behind her, and the brass coming around to her before you realize she is supposed to be universally liked? Maybe its you that’s not watching Star Trek: Discovery. You should try that, instead of dropping F-bombs to try and project authority. Burnham may do actions that others disapprove of, but that’s not the same thing as having flaws.
Not a Mary Sue. Same amount with Janeway. Ok, but that doesn't make her a Mary Sue. Just a character with writing people disagree with. Protagonist doesn't mean I'll agree with the character. Just that they're at the center of the action. You can call her poorly written but she's flawed.
I really don’t get how anyone can argue that Burnham isn’t flawed, when the entire series begins with a series of fuck-ups bad enough to start a war and get her sent to space-jail.
That's cool, but being an action hero doesn't make either character a Mary Sue. What, specifically, about Pike's and Rilak's behavior towards Michael marks her as a Mary Sue? Because my recollection is that Pike treats her as a highly-talented officer who is still maturing. Which makes sense, because she, in addition to her record, she both established how talented she was in her first mission with him while also getting herself badly injured and needing a rescue. Rillak's whole thing towards Michael at first is that she both recognizes Michael is extraordinarily talented, yet also recognizes that Michael has not yet come to accept that she cannot save everyone and that this is a pretty major blind spot that can lead to her making some really bad decisions, as it very nearly did in that episode. This is not how supporting characters treat Mary Sues. Mary Sues do not have blind spots that get called out by other characters. Mary Sues are definitionally flawless. You want a Mary Sue? Jack Dawson from the 1997 film Titanic is a Mary Sue. He has no real flaws; he is effortlessly competent when others are incompetent; when others have conflict with him, they usually being assholes or classist or both; and he is a pretty obvious author self-insert for writer-director James Cameron. Michael Burnham is nothing like Jack Dawson. Absolute nonsense. Michael is consistently framed as a person who is extraordinarily talented but also has major flaws. Please do give more supporting detail, because I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. If you don't like my use of fuck for emphasis (not authority), you can fucking die mad about it. I watch Star Trek: Discovery. You either do not, or you do and do not understand what you are watching, or you do and you are being intentionally dishonest in your description of its events. S4 is literally about Michael having to come to terms with the fact she can't save everybody, as exemplified most intimately by her inability to save Book from his own grief. That's a flaw. Rillak was absolutely correct in her assessment of Michael in "Kobayashi Maru."
What? That is exactly what she did! 10 minutes into the first episode, her second interaction with Saru (in her first interaction with him, she only belittles him) Michael Burnham embarrasses Saru in front of the Captain and the entire bridge crew. The writers felt it was necessary to elevate Mikey B, to show how competent and smart she is, at the expense of Saru who was portrayed as an incompetent fool who doesn't know what he is doing. Burnham pushes Saru physically away from his station. That smug facial expression. And people wonder why Burnham is not liked.
The point of that scene was not that Saru was incompetent and Michael hyper-competent and correct. The point of that scene was that Michael was talented but arrogant and disrespectful. Part of her redemption in S1 was letting go of her arrogance and learning to treat others with more respect.
Her actions did start the war. Particularly because she disobeyed Georgiou. Georgiou ordered Burnham to do only a flyby. She lied to Gereogui with a straight face and disobeyed her order to satisfy her personal curiosity. That led to her killing the Torchbearer and that drove T'Kuvma over the edge. Then she failed at stopping the war because she did not capture T'Kuvma. She did not follow the plan, disobeying orders again. BTW, she failed at capturing T'Kuvma not because of her inability to do so, but because she chose to fail by killing him. Lying to her captain, disobeying orders (twice), attacking her captain, and trying to take over command. All of that was in the first episode of the first season. And people don't understand why Burnham is not liked. That's called "bad writing".
Same shit, different day. The more things change, the more they stay the same. But doing pretty good.