Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by The Habs Fan, Mar 2, 2023.
What? We haven't even discussed the tardigrade lawsuit in a meaningful manner!
Oooo... I had completely forgotten about that silliness.
I get to use this one last time.
The thing is: GR himself often said he really didn't want to do more Star Trek, but money talks - so he did what he did on TNG; but beyond the money at that point, I don't think he really cared about it all that much and was happy to hand it off to others while still cashing a check.
When I get back, I have a classic thread from 2018 to link back to. We had way more fhan we should've that night. I'll either post the link here or, if this thread ends up getting closed before then, I'll post it in the General Thread. But either way it's a true Blast From The Past.
PICARD was filmed in Los Angeles because that was a stipulation of Patrick Stewart to do the show. Filming in Los Angeles is EXPENSIVE - so studios avoid it these days. Yes, the sets themselves cost a pretty penny, BUT WRT the ongoing Star Trek production in Paramount's Canadian studios; it's cheaper just to rebuild them from scratch rather then strike them down, pack them up, ship them to Canada and either reinstall or take up storage space there.
There's no way Paramount would incur the expense of filming another Star Trek show in Hollywood itself, especially when looking to cut production costs. They started filming new Star Trek in Canada because it was WAY cheaper to do so.
Well, if we're rehashing ages-old arguments again, let me just quote myself from three years ago (almost precisely to the day):
Someone followed up saying not everything was trashed, but he wasn't allowed say what was saved.
They were winning the argument; you were the one using the wrong definition of "Mary Sue." And they point out that accusing Michael of being a Mary Sue is often done by racists, because it is often done by racists.
Michael consistently gets held up to standards that the white and male protagonists do not get held up to.
It is not that they don't understand you. They understand you. You're just wrong.
Neither the Kelvin Timeline version of Kirk nor Michael Burnham are Mary Sues, because neither character is without flaw and neither character is an author self-insert.
The word for "developed into something completely different" is "evolved."
I mean, that's pretty subjective. I like Michael just fine. I think she's easily one of the most empathetic, compassionate captains who regularly goes out of her way to understand her crew's lives on a level most previous ST captains just haven't done.
So... you don't like the idea of Michael accomplishing things while also having feelings.
Yes, Star Trek: Discovery employs the writing conventions of modern serialized character dramas rather than the writing conventions of thirty years ago. That's because television has evolved into a more sophisticated medium. It is a good thing. The Star Trek production office is not the village of Anatevka and Alex Kurtzman is not Tevye the Dairyman.
(May Topol's memory be a blessing.)
None of this makes anyone a Mary Sue.
Yup. This is it.
Here's the arguments I see: Michael can't do these things because she's a Mary Sue!
"Well, Kirk did those things. How is it different."
"It's different because he did them better."
"Ok, so better does not mean that a character is a Mary Sue, just because you don't agree with the character."
That's it. It's a completely nonsensical argument from the jump. You can say that Michael was poorly written, that the writing on Discovery was bad, that you didn't like the acting, etc. "Mary Sue" is not a part of any of those things.
All Michael did was the same things other Trek captains did but with emotions and with feeling. That's it. She had emotional honesty in her dealings with her crew.
Actually, some fans aren’t fond of Picard’s action hero phase in the movies. Which is comparable to Burnham’s action hero phase in the final act of S3.
And again, Pike’s reaction to Burnham like she’s a Mary Sue. Burnham being the only one intervening to prevent a fight between her friend and the captain. And Rillak implying to Burnham’s face she was a Mary Sue, hours after she dedicated a spacedock to Archer, who saved the day by himself on many occasions. And like Burnhan, saved Earth from a world ending threat. While many times invoking emotion, like Burnham. Its clear that the writers were not just aware of criticism of Burnham, but very much leaned into Burnham being a Mary Sue. Which is preferable to failing upwards, like Archer is associated with.
I don’t see the point in denying Burnham became a Mary Sue. The writers clearly abandoned Burnham having any faults after the first season and seem fine with interpretation of the character.
So clear we're still debating it...
Everything Burnham does comes across as main character shenanigans. Everything she does another Trek character has done before with less, if any, justification. Burnham is the only one fighting to be accepted. That's a problem.
This is all so laughable.
I mean, they're not part of the main cast so why would they be developed? For that matter, even in the other shows when the bridge crew were part of the main cast, there was always neglected characters among them anyway. No one cried for Harry Kim or Mayweather they way they cry for Detmer and Owo.
I'm getting out of work, I'm in my car, and waiting for it to warm up in the snow.
Some key points:
1. Burnham's not even a Mary Sue in Seasons 2-4. She can't bring herself to do what she needs to do to kill Airiam, and Nhan has to do the job for her. Pike doesn't show reverence for Burnham. Respect, but not reverence. In Season 3, Starfleet is unsure about the Discovery crew until the end of the season. In Season 4, Rillak says Burnham has a lot to learn and, at one point, she sends Nhan as chaperone to make sure she stops Book & Tarka and she still can't do it. So she's definitely flawed and people definitely don't see her as perfect. Going back to Season 3, in "Unification III", she has to make her case to Ni'Var in a long drawn-out debate. If she were a Mary Sue, they would've given her what she needed to piece together the cause of The Burn immediately.
2. This is 2023, you have to know by now, across various genre franchises, that calling female protagonists Mary Sues isn't a good look. There's no excuse. So either people who do it want to come off as sexist or they don't care if they look sexist. Either way, it doesn't make them look good. And they only ever refer to a male character as a Mary Sue when called on it, to say "I'm not sexist!" From what I've seen, they never do it unprompted.
3. Stop moving goalposts. It's unsportsmanlike and only tells me that you don't want to debate either fairly or in good faith.
Which has nothing to do with being a Mary Sue.
.... no. None of that is being a Mary Sue. Everything you just described is about Michael being the protagonist, not being a Mary Sue.
A Mary Sue is an author self-insert character who has no flaws, whom everybody loves, and whose astonishing abilities resolve the plot with no real costs.
Michael has plenty of flaws. She wrestles with them throughout the series. Well into Season Four, she is not universally beloved. And most importantly -- she is no one's self-insert character.
Michael Burnham is not a Mary Sue.
And the fact that people keep saying without leveling the same accusation against white and male protagonists even though her accomplishments and function within the show are virtually identical to those of the other Star Trek protagonists? It sticks out like a sore thumb.
I don't know what the fuck show you're watching, but it ain't Star Trek: Discovery.
Yep. I mean, hell, Benjamin Sisko is literally Space Jesus who ascends into Heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father enters the Celestial Temple to become one with the Prophets, and he doesn't get accused of being a Mary Sue the way Michael Burnham does.
On a happier note: Back home and, as promised, here's a Blast From the Past!
Like I said. We had way too much fun that night, stomping out that troll, and then even he decided, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!" and got in on the fun. It turned out great. I was up all night, we all had great conversations, and it ended up going into all kinds of wackiness. Even the moderators were having a good time and some fun. They didn't close it right away and left it open for a good while.
I had Jury Duty the next morning. And I hadn't had any sleep. I was dreading that I'd be too asleep in case I got picked. Then I found out Jury Duty was cancelled! They settled whatever the case was out of court. So then I probably went to bed and slept in that day.
Good thread. All I can say is after reading that I can't believe this is still going on.
And RIP Locutus.
Michael didn't get her captain killed, her captain got herself killed because she refused to listen to Michael.
Michael was rightfully or wrongfully blamed for starting a war, and got put in a position to save an entire galaxy wide species of sentient fungus based life from being genocided.
And the first season was her proving herself by showing how much better she was then everybody else.
All that is textbook Mary Sue.
Separate names with a comma.