Sci said:
FederationHistorian said:
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.
Which has nothing to do with being a Mary Sue.
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.
That's cool, but being an action hero doesn't make
either character a Mary Sue.
It still doesn’t address why she was treated the way she was from Pike and Rillak.
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.
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.
Absolute nonsense. Michael is consistently framed as a person who is extraordinarily talented but also has major flaws.
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?
Please do give more supporting detail, because I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Maybe its you that’s not watching Star Trek: Discovery. You should try that, instead of dropping F-bombs to try and project authority.
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.
Burnham may do actions that others disapprove of, but that’s not the same thing as having flaws.
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."
