Spoilers Johnathan Frakes is spoiling stuff again (Season 2)
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
Nice straw man.
What you think Janeway and Burnham are similar characters?
How many times per day do you shift goal posts, typically?
What a strange response
Agreed. The character had some weird moments, mostly in the Kirk Speech vein, but these weren't SM-Gs fault. She gave a performance that outshone the writing of her character.
Why? You just did it twice in a span of four minutes.What a strange response
Burnham is a textbook example of 'Mary Sue'. It's not just that she's always perfect and making the right decisions (even if she get's punished for it), related to Spock, the biggest codifier is: The bad guys usually get foiled by how much they love her. Both Lorca AND Mirror Georgiou are played by how awesome they think Burnham is, because she is so perfect.
But: The "Mary Sue" part is mostly the writing. SMG elevates that stuff and makes a real character out of here. It's a bit similar to the situation in Star Wars: Rey is also a perfect written example of a Mary Sue. But Daisy Ridley is so amazing in that role, it makes it entertaining watching her anyway. I'd go so far as to say, script-Rey is one of the weaker aspects of Star Wars, but Daisy Ridley is IMO carrying half the success of Disney Star Wars alone, effortless.
I will hope that the writers tone the Mary Sue aspects of Burnham down a little. And I'm sure they will - they are not deaf to criticism after all. This ain't the first time Star Trek had Mary Sue (or Gary Sue) character. At times Janeway qualified, Kirk in many episodes as well. But Burnham is still the most 'Mary Sue"-y character Star Trek ever had.
That doesn't diminish that Burnham is also a compelling character in her own right. Usually everytime we don't get bombarded with either 1) her monologues or 2) other people gushing about her - basically whenever she actually is allowed to act in a scene - I find myself liking her immensely.
Being a "Mary Sue" so far is just that - a set of attrubutes Burnham undeniably posses. But it isn't ALL her character posseses: She's an interesting protagonist beyond those few characteristics as well.
Basically, this: Yes, she is a Mary Sue. Probably more than any character on Trek before her. But she is also SO MUCH MORE at the same time!
But: The "Mary Sue" part is mostly the writing. SMG elevates that stuff and makes a real character out of here. It's a bit similar to the situation in Star Wars: Rey is also a perfect written example of a Mary Sue. But Daisy Ridley is so amazing in that role, it makes it entertaining watching her anyway. I'd go so far as to say, script-Rey is one of the weaker aspects of Star Wars, but Daisy Ridley is IMO carrying half the success of Disney Star Wars alone, effortless.
I will hope that the writers tone the Mary Sue aspects of Burnham down a little. And I'm sure they will - they are not deaf to criticism after all. This ain't the first time Star Trek had Mary Sue (or Gary Sue) character. At times Janeway qualified, Kirk in many episodes as well. But Burnham is still the most 'Mary Sue"-y character Star Trek ever had.
That doesn't diminish that Burnham is also a compelling character in her own right. Usually everytime we don't get bombarded with either 1) her monologues or 2) other people gushing about her - basically whenever she actually is allowed to act in a scene - I find myself liking her immensely.
Being a "Mary Sue" so far is just that - a set of attrubutes Burnham undeniably posses. But it isn't ALL her character posseses: She's an interesting protagonist beyond those few characteristics as well.
Basically, this: Yes, she is a Mary Sue. Probably more than any character on Trek before her. But she is also SO MUCH MORE at the same time!
Same here.
I really don't understand this - the whole arc of the show relies on her having made the wrong decision. We can argue all day whether we as fans agree or disagree that it was wrong, but the show is absolutely clear. The season arc is Burnham realising she was wrong to react to Klingons in that racist and knee jerk way, ultimately standing up to the federation brass doing the same thing.
No it didn't.
It turned partly on her having had an accident - killing the Torchbearer when she tripped.
Or perhaps the gun accidentally discharged while she was cleaning it. I forget.
She then attempted a mutiny, which was interrupted and had no real effect on anything.
We were shown, from the Klingon POV, that their courses of action were in fact being set by factors other than Burnham having Killed Kenny - Bastards! - anyway.
I mean, it's nice and all that eventually Michael had that protagonist's epiphany around "Racism Is Bad, 'Mkay", but it didn't really have a thing to do with the fact that her earlier behavior didn't affect anything.
As I said, we can disagree with the show's logic that it was the wrong decision, but the show absolutely feels it was, and that was Burnham's character arc, discovering that she was wrong. Couldn't really have been more telegraphed. You have an admiral openly calling her prejudiced in the pilot.
The opener was muddled, but as far as I can see, there were three "bad decisions" Burnham made.
1. Accidentally killing the Torchbearer. This likely had no impact on the war happening, because T'Kuvma was planning some sort of attack regardless in an attempt to unite the Klingon houses.
2. Attempted "mutiny" of the Shenzhou. This is what caused her to be stripped of rank and imprisoned. However, it's important to note that it didn't cause the war to happen, because she didn't get a chance to fire first. Worse the episode heavily implies that if Georgiou listened to Burnham and fired first, the other Klingons might have decided to not support T'Kuvma. That is to say, the decision that Burnham made was bad for her career, but it might have been the right one to make from the perspective of the greater good.
3. After the attempt to bring back T'Kuvma as a prisoner from his disabled ship fails, and Georgiou is killed, Burnham in a fit of rage sets her phaser to kill, arguably murdering him in cold blood. The earlier discussion in the episode makes it clear this was a bad decision, because it makes him into a martyr for the cause, and ends any ability to end the war quickly. However, it is never remarked upon again by anyone, and doesn't seem to play a direct role in her being stripped of rank.
IMHO the show completely botched the closing arc, because any evidence that Burnham might have been "racist" against Klingons, and/or suffered some PTSD related to her childhood experiences, was quickly dropped and not brought up again until the final episode. Burnham had no problem going toe-to-toe with Kol at the end of Act 1, acted pretty normal dealing with L'Rell and MU Voq, etc.
What I thought the conclusion of the season was going to be about was one of the central conflicts in her personality - that due to being raised by Sarek she believes she's this hyper-rational individual, but that she's actually more emotional and impulsive than the average human, and uses the veneer of logic to cover it up. At the end would have been able to confront this by realizing MU Georgiou is a shitlord, not her mentor, and didn't deserve any sort of redemption arc. It would have made much more sense from a character growth perspective.
This is simply wrong: Her decision regarding the klingon contact was the correct one - all the way. She just went too far - take her matters in her own hand via mutiny, while the alternative would have been: Being right, but not being able to convince her Caption do the right thing. She was "the Cassandra" at this point - only that she tried to do something herself.
And even then - the mutiny - was forgiven pretty fast by her Captain: They went on that away mission together. Then Georgiou let herself killed, before she could have re-instated Burnham's position. And Burnham failed (by killing T'Kuvma). But it awasn't her failing - it was her Captain that lost the battle and let herself get killed, and thus made the mission fail.
Burnham essentially tried to correct the mistakes of others - but failed, and then had to pay for it. She was always right, though.
As far as the finale: Burnham DIDN'T want to blow up the klingons! Very specifically not, not even in the beginning, that was why the Admiral and Mirror Georgiou had to LIE to her about it. And - again - Burnham had to correct the mistakes by others. Only this time she succeeded.
On the way she had to face her personal distaste for the klingons, and learned to see them as people. But that never had an influence on her decision making - She would have done the right choice, to not blow up the klingons, regardless, of only out of a sense of idealism, and not respect for the klingons.
Burnham had an arc of "reestablishing" herself to her former position, yes. But her "failures" didn't came out of a weakness of her character to overcome - she always wanted to do the correct ting the entire time - but that others around her made mistakes, which she at first didn't manage to correct, but in the finale did.
So, because she's the hero of the show, she's therefore a Mary Sue.
Like all leads in the past shows. Got it.
Agreed. I felt that way about Picard in large portions of first season. Stewart gave more to the performances than the scripts asked for, but in the end Picard during the first season suffered from the writers not knowing how to properly utilize the character, too many times he was written an aloof captain on the bridge that's constantly flummoxed/incapacitated by situations, while Riker got to act as the hero of the show probably because the writers viewed him closer to the Kirk model.
Like all leads in the past shows. Got it.
Agreed. I felt that way about Picard in large portions of first season. Stewart gave more to the performances than the scripts asked for, but in the end Picard during the first season suffered from the writers not knowing how to properly utilize the character, too many times he was written an aloof captain on the bridge that's constantly flummoxed/incapacitated by situations, while Riker got to act as the hero of the show probably because the writers viewed him closer to the Kirk model.
I want to address this from a different vein which is why I think Burnham seems more like a mary sue then say kirk or picard and it comes from an element of the show that I think sounded better in theory then it did in execution which is making a non-captain the lead character.
With Kirk/picard/etc they are the captains of the ship so we expect them to have all the answers, know what to do, etc. or seek out appropriate advise. The times they have to go against authority it is often an admiral or somebody light years away who doesn't know the reality of the situation.
Now in discovery we have a different dynamic. Our lead character and the one who is the hero and is going to save the day isn't the captain. So for her to be right and save the day she has to be the one to come up with the ideas and not the captain and in come cases (like the mutany) have to actually go against what the captain wants because she is the one that is right. I think having a non-captain in this role makes her look more like a mary sue then if it is the captain making all the right decisions. It almost comes accross more like Wesley (who absolutely fits this category) who performs better then all the starfleet officers on the ship. With Burnham she was starfleet but after we get past the pilot she has no rank anymore but is still the one with all the answers.
I don't want to get into who is and isn't a mary sue, but I think Burnham not being the captain and being in the hero role makes her appear to be more of a mary sue then if the same character was the captain.
Honestly, I don't think the idea of having the show center around somebody not the captain really worked as well as it sounded in concept but that is a totally separate discussion,
With Kirk/picard/etc they are the captains of the ship so we expect them to have all the answers, know what to do, etc. or seek out appropriate advise. The times they have to go against authority it is often an admiral or somebody light years away who doesn't know the reality of the situation.
Now in discovery we have a different dynamic. Our lead character and the one who is the hero and is going to save the day isn't the captain. So for her to be right and save the day she has to be the one to come up with the ideas and not the captain and in come cases (like the mutany) have to actually go against what the captain wants because she is the one that is right. I think having a non-captain in this role makes her look more like a mary sue then if it is the captain making all the right decisions. It almost comes accross more like Wesley (who absolutely fits this category) who performs better then all the starfleet officers on the ship. With Burnham she was starfleet but after we get past the pilot she has no rank anymore but is still the one with all the answers.
I don't want to get into who is and isn't a mary sue, but I think Burnham not being the captain and being in the hero role makes her appear to be more of a mary sue then if the same character was the captain.
Honestly, I don't think the idea of having the show center around somebody not the captain really worked as well as it sounded in concept but that is a totally separate discussion,
This is simply wrong, to use your phrase. There is nothing in the show to suggest she was right, fan arguments aside, she is presented as being wrong and having done the wrong thing out of fear and prejudice. I really can't see how you can read the pilot as anything else. I get all the arguments that the plot makes no sense because the war was inevitable, but the show, the characters, see what she did as wrong. And so does she.
Exactly, that's my point. She's changed from episode 1 when her reaction to Klingon presence is a physical, visceral, desire to strike now and strike hard. By finale she has learnt that was wrong, and now stands up to the federation wanting to do that. She stands up to authority in both pilot and finale, but the first time she was on the wrong side, in the second she was on the right side. That's her arc.
But they did, though. It's explicit in dialogue in the show. She has to overcome her fear and prejudice of the Klingons as enemies to find a solution to the war. I'm not saying it's ground breaking or even particularly well written, but that's the story.
You know, as far as 'Star Trek' is concerned, a Mary Sue-type main character actually isn't the worst choice. I'd prefer that a hundred times over an anti-hero headlining a Trek show. I thought pre-reveal/but-still-already-shady Lorca was an interesting character. But wouldn't have been a good main character. Star Trek is - like some other franchises (Bond, superheroes) - to a big part wishfullfillment. In this case on the adventurer/scientist/explorer side. It's IMO perfectly okay to have main characters that are larger-than-life in this regard.
My only problem regarding the Mary Sue aspect of Burnham are 1) the forced Spock connection (god, I wish the writers would have avoided that), and 2) the repetition: It's okay for the evil guy's plan to be foiled by his personal admiration for the main character. But three(!) times? (Lorca/Tyler loving her, Georgiou loving her like a daughter). One time per season would have been absolutely enough.
That being said (again): Burnham isn't too far off the general mold of Trek heroes. The writing could be a bit better sometimes. But Burnham - both the character and her portrayal by SMG - is IMO absolutely one of the main strengths of this show.
My only problem regarding the Mary Sue aspect of Burnham are 1) the forced Spock connection (god, I wish the writers would have avoided that), and 2) the repetition: It's okay for the evil guy's plan to be foiled by his personal admiration for the main character. But three(!) times? (Lorca/Tyler loving her, Georgiou loving her like a daughter). One time per season would have been absolutely enough.
That being said (again): Burnham isn't too far off the general mold of Trek heroes. The writing could be a bit better sometimes. But Burnham - both the character and her portrayal by SMG - is IMO absolutely one of the main strengths of this show.
Similar threads
