I agree with this espcially when you go back to Sarak's scene where he specifically cautions here that it may not be the right decision. Then when you add in the fact the T'cauvna was trying to convince the other klingins that the federation really didn't come in peace firing on them would still have likely started a war.
Spoilers Johnathan Frakes is spoiling stuff again (Season 2)
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
I agree with this espcially when you go back to Sarak's scene where he specifically cautions here that it may not be the right decision. Then when you add in the fact the T'cauvna was trying to convince the other klingins that the federation really didn't come in peace firing on them would still have likely started a war.
Her mutiny was wrong. Not her initial decision. Again: She was wrong in handling the mistakes of others. Had she been more convincingly, the war could have been avoided. But she was god enough in convincing Georgiou to take her on a mission directly afterwards. So, compared to, say, Tom Paris who did a real mistake, Burnham was essentially punished for not being able to explain the right way to others convincingly.
No! Absolutely not! She had no desire to go an a genocidal mission to Kronos in the pilot (nor the finale, for that matter). She wanted to use the "Vulcan Hello" as a genuine, working way to communicate with the klingons. She was a hawkish hardliner - yes. But not out of emotion. But because she knew klingon politics. Again: her choice in the pilot was the correct one (as in the finale). The only problem was that in the pilot, she wasn't able to convince her Captain to do the right thing (and thus did the stupid mutiny), while in the finale, she was able to convince the Admiral (and MU Georgiou).
Well, yeah. She was predjudiced against them. But before that, that didn't cloud her judgement. She was just now able to personally forgive them/accept them. (Comparable to Kirks growth in TUC: He was anti-klingon in the beginning too, but still did the right thing to meet with the chancellor, and later learned genuine respect, too).
There's a whole scene where she is portrayed having a physical emotional response to the presence of Klingons, and a bit where she starts making racist comments to Admiral Hologram and gets pulled up on it. She is literally seen to panic.
It would have been more interesting, if Burnham's mutiny had had actual, not to mention galactic, consequences, like say actually firing on the Klingon ship in a full-fledged Vulcan Hello, and also if Burnham had skillfully and intentionally dispatched the Torchbearer in self-defense and/or in fear, instead of accidentally running over him while bugging out in a panic.
Instead we got this jumbled mess and cop-out, as if there had been way too many cooks in the kitchen, which resulted in Burnham being scapegoated by pretty much all of Starfleet. And for what? Inexplicably* upping her phaser setting from stun to kill after Georgiou had been fatally wounded? Because that was the only decision she made both that got to have consequence and that was actually wrong. Everything else she did got nipped in the bud or was excusable.
* - Although, at least as many have argued from the perspective of our real world without weapons that can switch between stun and kill at the flick of a switch, quite excusably.
Instead we got this jumbled mess and cop-out, as if there had been way too many cooks in the kitchen, which resulted in Burnham being scapegoated by pretty much all of Starfleet. And for what? Inexplicably* upping her phaser setting from stun to kill after Georgiou had been fatally wounded? Because that was the only decision she made both that got to have consequence and that was actually wrong. Everything else she did got nipped in the bud or was excusable.
* - Although, at least as many have argued from the perspective of our real world without weapons that can switch between stun and kill at the flick of a switch, quite excusably.
Even in past treks, the "lead" was not always the one who "saved the day." Often the protagonist of the episode was someone else entirely (any of the "character focus" episodes in later Trek), and even if the protagonist was the lead, the crisis was solved not by the actions of the lead alone (like say Spock in Devil in the Dark). DIS toyed with this a bit midseason with Lorca and Saru, but largely abandoned it entirely for Act 2.
I still maintain the biggest structural problem with Discovery's first season was their attempt to tell both Burnham's personal redemption arc and an epic war story at the same time. They should have focused on the first, and forgotten the second. Basically we just needed to see Burnham grow, redeem herself from causing the death of her captain, and leave her personal feelings behind to become a competent officer. We didn't need to see her kill two different "leaders" of the Klingons, be blamed for a quadrant-spanning war, solve a quadrant spanning war, help to destroy a ship which threatened all life everywhere, etc. The stakes-raising was ridiculous, and reduced the emotional impact.
Was the Mary Sue thing thrown at Archer back in the day? I remember some fans didn't even like the idea Enterprise just because they felt having Archer have the "firsts" in space exploration was Rick Berman's way of taking away Kirk's accomplishments. It sounds silly, but that's what I recall most about when the show was in its first season. Later on we learn that Archer is not only a pioneering captain of Starfleet but a founding father of the Federation and the future depends on him making the correct actions so to preserve the timeline.
Does that lessen the character? Would he be more endearing if he was "just another captain"? Does Picard being in command of the FLAGSHIP of the Federation make him too much of a wish fulfillment?
All our lead characters have these amazing accomplishments maybe because we're more interested in wanting to watch these guys than just some average lieutenant doing her/his duty by the book.
Does that lessen the character? Would he be more endearing if he was "just another captain"? Does Picard being in command of the FLAGSHIP of the Federation make him too much of a wish fulfillment?
All our lead characters have these amazing accomplishments maybe because we're more interested in wanting to watch these guys than just some average lieutenant doing her/his duty by the book.
^^
Agreed. The "Lower Decks" approach often is not as dynamic as it is often hyped to be. Our heroes are just that-heroes. They may have flaws but they still save the day. And that's OK!
Agreed. The "Lower Decks" approach often is not as dynamic as it is often hyped to be. Our heroes are just that-heroes. They may have flaws but they still save the day. And that's OK!
Agreed. I'll take more Burnham please.
Apparently Mary Sues are not overly likeable.
Which may be the determining factor as to whether or not a person thinks Burnham is a Mary Sue. I personal find her very engaging and likable to some degree, so I'll admit my bias and reluctance to call her a Mary Sue. Also, it is difficult to not see similar qualities among other Star Trek lead characters.
I don't think anyone could call Archer a Mary Sue (or Gary Stu in this case) because he's very very far from a competent character. If anything, the trope I'd say he fits is Butt Monkey, or informed ability. The show occasionally tells us he's this great, hyper-competent alpha male. But what it shows us is this sad whiny loser who likes to hang out with his beagle and watch videos of water polo.
I don't think it's quite the same though, because for the most part TOS wasn't about Kirk, TNG wasn't about Picard, etc. They got to play the hero of course, but 90% of the time their characters were a means toward the ends of resolving the story. in DIS, Burnham is both the subject and the object - sometimes in the same episode. This makes her more like a fanfic Mary Sue, because the whole point of the original Mary Sue concept was basically self-insertion of a "perfect" version of the writer into a fictional world as the centerpiece.
Last edited:
[to the tune of "Peggy Sue"]
If you knew Mary Sue
Then you'd know why Trek ain't cool with Mary
That Mary Sue-ue-ue
Jim Kirk and Mike Burnham, they're both just Mary Sues
Mary Sue, Mary Sue
Oh how that plot can't be new
Oh Mary, that Mary Sue-ue-ue
Savin' the galaxy, we need you Mary Sue
I think I'll drop in to this thread every week to see how it's shaping up...
If you knew Mary Sue
Then you'd know why Trek ain't cool with Mary
That Mary Sue-ue-ue
Jim Kirk and Mike Burnham, they're both just Mary Sues
Mary Sue, Mary Sue
Oh how that plot can't be new
Oh Mary, that Mary Sue-ue-ue
Savin' the galaxy, we need you Mary Sue
I think I'll drop in to this thread every week to see how it's shaping up...
Last edited:
It's not Mary Sue, but I like Mary Jane Candy. Very underappreciated.
And The Mary Jane Girls. Also underappreciated. Not to mention the creators of one of my favorite songs.
And The Mary Jane Girls. Also underappreciated. Not to mention the creators of one of my favorite songs.
I too wanted to visit that house.
Few of what's called that on the board actually are, anymore.
^ I'm sadly resigned to the fact that we'll be hearing about Mary Sue for the next 5-7 years at least.
Genuinely regretting what my Mary Sue comment has caused
Forget Mary Sue. Go classic or go home!
They could do something really cool and tie it to canon in a logical way. The Enterprise is dead in space because the crew learned the powers of the Talosians. The Discovery people at first find a ship full of passed out people, then are slowly dragged into the illusions of the Enterprise crew.
The reason there is a death penalty for going to Talos IV.
The reason there is a death penalty for going to Talos IV.
And it takes Burnham to mind meld the illusion powers out of them all. Even Spock is helpless!
And it takes Burnham to mind meld the illusion powers out of them all. Even Spock is helpless!
If you're going to fanwank it, might as well fanwank it until it is raw!
Similar threads
