Because people think it's funny a few sensitive people get put out of joint over a silly joking name. Especially when you go into the gender neutral crap which only a minority if people even care about.
People just need to lighten up.
Poll Is Michael Burnham a "Mary Sue"?
- Thread starter Skipper
- Start date
- Status
Because people think it's funny a few sensitive people get put out of joint over a silly joking name. Especially when you go into the gender neutral crap which only a minority if people even care about.
People just need to lighten up.
I'm sorry, are you freely admitting that you are using these terms just to "put out of joint" people..? For real..?
I suppose if anyone can be a "Michael," anyone can be a "Mary."
Easy to say when you don't have to put up with the bigotry these folks do.
Didn't say I was.
Only people are far to easly offended these days.
Though to be honest I am the sort of person that doesn't care either way. I don't really care whether some words on the internet offend some thin skined individuals not in a world when far worse things go on.
Your reading to much into things and seeing bigotry where there isn't any.
Bigotry is paying women less, denying the equal rights, sexually harassing ect
Calling a FICTIONAL character in a FICTIONAL TV program is nothing, barely a fart in a hurricane.
So, I don't know, people shouldn't be offended by the treatment of black people in Birth of A Nation because they are just characters in a movie, right..?
Never seen the film so can't comment on it.
She kind of is. But then again a lot of Trek characters are. It also depends on how narrow or wide of a definition of Mary Sue you have.
I think the main issue is how central to every major event she is and yet, and especially this season, she's a very passive character IMO.
I think the main issue is how central to every major event she is and yet, and especially this season, she's a very passive character IMO.
Reading up on it, it looks like 2 hours of American chest beating trash.
Got better things to do than watch god knows how many hours of propaganda.
Seriously, you don't know anything about this movie?!?
Let's try to stick to the facts and not get personal, such as calling people "too sensitive" or whatever. That was never the case. Besides, this kind of tactic just distracts from the subject matter, which should be whether a fictional character shares the characteristics defined by a certain literary trope. Even that is difficult to do objectively, as the term in question has mostly lost its original meaning and is now just being used as a derogatory catchphrase instead of a writing tool. Diverting attention to the people critical of its usage and their potential personal motivations (away from the subject itself) is not helpful and will lead nowhere. Let's not do that.
What are the facts? There was once a term, Mary Sue, coined after a parody piece written to mock certain tropes in the Trek fandom. It became a writing tool. Then, it became something else and lost all usefulness as a gauge to measure a character's perceived flawlessness and importance in a fictional setting. Now, it's pretty much just a dog whistle (not opening that can of worms any more than I have to for the sake of the argument). It technically doesn't even apply to canon characters. The answer to the question must then be "no".
This is something else entirely than critiquing or criticising something one dislikes. That can also be done without the usage of catchphrases that only serve to rub people the wrong way based on how certain terms are currently being used in the media/social networks.
If we can focus on that, we might steer clear of discussions that are both pointless and that may easily descend into personal attacks.
/soapbox
(...and thank you for letting me speechify. I don't do it often enough
)
Maybe the thread should be about whether one likes Michael or not, but then, I think we'll be en route to descending into swirling maelstroms of madness or something.
What are the facts? There was once a term, Mary Sue, coined after a parody piece written to mock certain tropes in the Trek fandom. It became a writing tool. Then, it became something else and lost all usefulness as a gauge to measure a character's perceived flawlessness and importance in a fictional setting. Now, it's pretty much just a dog whistle (not opening that can of worms any more than I have to for the sake of the argument). It technically doesn't even apply to canon characters. The answer to the question must then be "no".
This is something else entirely than critiquing or criticising something one dislikes. That can also be done without the usage of catchphrases that only serve to rub people the wrong way based on how certain terms are currently being used in the media/social networks.
If we can focus on that, we might steer clear of discussions that are both pointless and that may easily descend into personal attacks.
/soapbox
(...and thank you for letting me speechify. I don't do it often enough
)Maybe the thread should be about whether one likes Michael or not, but then, I think we'll be en route to descending into swirling maelstroms of madness or something.
This is going to seem counter to what I have been saying..........But I would prefer Burnham if she was captain.
I am (believe it or not) despite my age (31) and profession... a very irreverent and immature person at heart.
Burnham seems to have a giant rod up her arse and is pretty arrogant and aloof. Male or female it is the opposite of what I would like to see in a fellow colleague.
However, those are traits I would expect to see in a captain and I would probably warm to her in that roll.
I am (believe it or not) despite my age (31) and profession... a very irreverent and immature person at heart.
Burnham seems to have a giant rod up her arse and is pretty arrogant and aloof. Male or female it is the opposite of what I would like to see in a fellow colleague.
However, those are traits I would expect to see in a captain and I would probably warm to her in that roll.
Heh.
Thank you for confirming what I speculated in June. Cutting and pasting in the quote below...
Between Georgiou, Lorca, and now Pike, I for one happen to like that Discovery shows different Captains with different styles and how Burnham, and other crew members, relate to them.
Last edited:
I don't want to derail this thread, but it's considered, uhm, one of the most influential movies in the world history of film.Nope.
It must be a US thing
Burnham is akin to an author self-insert into a fan fiction. She's awkwardly wedged into the Star Trek mythos for no apparent reason beyond a need to connect the show to TOS. People will bring up Sybok at this point; okay, fair enough. But at least Sybok sort of makes sense. It's not a stretch to say Sarek had a son with another woman before Spock. That is mostly reasonable. But to say Spock has a HUMAN foster sister all of a sudden when Spock's whole character arc was centered upon his acceptance of his human side? Come on.
So the reason people call her a Mary Sue is because she's a fan fiction character! If she was simply the lead (without her asinine connection to Spock), she'd be yet another impossibly talented Starfleet character. We've had those. No one cares. But when your lead is a fan fiction trope, things start to look Mary/Gary Sue-esque. Burnham isn't just Spock's foster sister; he also IDOLIZED her! The fact Burnham is hyper-competent isn't the issue. It's her backstory that really rankles.
So the reason people call her a Mary Sue is because she's a fan fiction character! If she was simply the lead (without her asinine connection to Spock), she'd be yet another impossibly talented Starfleet character. We've had those. No one cares. But when your lead is a fan fiction trope, things start to look Mary/Gary Sue-esque. Burnham isn't just Spock's foster sister; he also IDOLIZED her! The fact Burnham is hyper-competent isn't the issue. It's her backstory that really rankles.
Last edited:
What's the evidence that he idolized her? He shut the door on Burnham when Amanda introduced her to him. Then, in the only other flashback we see of them together as kids, he doesn't want Burnham to runaway because she's family. That's not idolization. That's being a little kid.
As an adult, Spock rips her to shreds in the latest episode.
- Status
