Michael Burnham is the Chosen One

I mean, I think my current boss is much, much better fit for his job than the last two people who have been in that position. I see no reason whatsoever to tell him that - it would be wholly inappropriate. It's his job to commend my work, not the inverse.

 

Different environments then... I compliment my current boss frequently, and vice versa. It was a little less common at my last job, but my boss's boss had a similar relationship.

 

I think a lot of you could use more compliments.

 

Discovery's first season had an issue with telling and not showing in general. It's not specific to Burnham, IMO.

It starts with the very first scene, which is an infodump for the audience rather than a believable conversation between colleagues.

I think the later fussing is a relatively understandable side effect of the TOS crew's adventures spanning so many years IRL. We, the audience, were fully vested in Kirk as an amazing captain, saving the day on screens big and small, so it naturally crept into the narrative. (And the fact that the crew was clearly reaching the end of their Trek journey added to the desire to present them with the metaphorical gold watch.)

That sort of in-story flattery is a lot harder to sell for characters that lack 25 years of audience connection.

 

Lol. I didn't even notice how much Burnham actually got praised. Probably because this chosen-one narrative is so prevalent in Hollywood... Luky Skywalker anyone? Neo?Fuck, Chris-Pine-nuKirk???

How often have we seen straight white looser getting picked up drunk in a bar by father-figures that tell them how awesome they are?
(btw I now wanna' see Burnham drink some aliens under the table in a space bar)

Yes! That's the thing that annoyed me the most! I actually really liked Burnham whenever she was actually doing something, having to actually make choices on her own, or even only conversations. I just couldn't stand the times were she was looking stern in the distance and having voice-over speeches about how hard her choices were.

Agreed on the Mary Sue ascpect, diasgreed on your examples: Kirk & Picard were the best at their jobs - but not at everything. Kirk wasn't the ships best scientist, Picard not a lady's man etc...Really, especially @Mach5 's example show how the other shows were better ensemble-pieces - where everyone got something he was brilliant at (and thus why he got this job), while having plenty of flaws otherwise. (Kim's social skills anyone?) Burnham has a kind of "got-it-all", being the best at everything, from science to tactics to athletics to social skills to anything else....

That being said, Treks' prime "Mary Sue" is IMO still Tom Paris - except for his criminal backstory, he's good at everything. And he's one of my favourite characters.

I do think Burnham is kind of a "Mary Sue" by the original fan-fic definition - but at the same time, I don't really care that much about it. It's genre SF. Let her be the best at everything. She just needs to have a compelling character on her own. That's IMO where the show lacked in the beginning, but got a better grasp on her during the season (even if the writing of everything else got worse). I liked her character (and Tilly) much more at the end of the season than in the beginning.

 

I don’t even consider this a debate worth having. This Mary Sue shit is sexist garbage and nothing else. Any competent female character gets labeled it, it is utterly meaningless as a term now. There can’t even be a worthwhile debate over it because so many who argue for it are doing so in bad faith.

 

^
What she said.

 

Pretty much this. It has now become a nonsense word with zero meaning. Same thing with hate. Both words lack any sort of meaning and that makes me frustrated and sad because they still get used and render discussion rather moot.

 

Yeah, I don’t hate any movie or show. There are plenty I don’t like, but hate is reserved for targets who have earned it, like people, groups and laws who try to harm certain groups of people.

 

Pretty much. Though, I will admit that I'm starting to cheer Michael on more and more simply because she bothers so many people. Probably not the best reaction but there it is.

 

I really don't understand that mentality. If you don't like something, why even pay attention to it - let alone fixate on it the point of exhibiting enmity? Shit. There's a lot of stuff out there that I don't like. But with all the stuff I do like to pay attention to (let alone everything going on in my life), I don't have the time to give it a second thought. And I usually end up forgetting it even exists until it comes up in conversation.

 

I'm not someone who is heavily emotionally invested in any media whatsoever. Don't understand fanfic, don't feel any real attachment to any characters. This might be why nerdrage does not compute for me. Things can bore me, or disappoint me, or even shock me if they're especially shoddily done. But I never feel angry about it.

 

I keep thinking about the webmaster of Ex Astris Scientia, he dislikes DSC a lot (most of the time), but keeps watching it and posting about it because his website is dedicated to all of trek, not just the stuff he likes. But you can clearly see the bias in his posts.

 

I can get attached to characters, but I also get that my connection to them does not make the writers in any way responsible to do a specific thing. If I am disappointed then I can move on. Wasn't for me.

I guess my weird protective instincts kick in because I get tired of people tearing in to characters for no other reason that just personal distaste. Again, if it is that outraging spare the blood pressure and don't watch it.

That doesn't compute for me...

BTW, not saying you do that. Just trying to explicate my position.

 

Some people are really insecure and have a deep obsession with always being right. So they feel the need to convince others that something they don’t like it awful. It’s a different than criticism which is a one-off judgement. You see something, comment on it and move on. These people are so obsessed that they keep on going for years because they absolutely need to be right, even over objective opinion.

Yeah, I get attached too. But I don’t think I own them. I do get upset that things don’t go the way I like, but it’s not my story. If I want a story to go the way I want it to, I’ll write myself.

Like with Last Jedi, Luke Skywalker is my favorite fictional character and has been since as far as I can remember. I don’t like where he ended up, but I don’t get a vote on that and it ended up being far more interesting than just having him jump around with a lightsaber. I’d rather see a more interesting performance than a lot of spectacle and generally things need to be complicated for that to happen.

 

She's the central character.

 

Sort of.

TOS was a series of stories that were inventing the characters as they went along. The TOS-based movies were reflections on TOS from the perspective of a decade or two later, incorporating into their POV the belief that there was something especially significant about Trek and its characters.

 

But she’s a woman and some guys just can’t handle a woman ever being praised unless it’s for their looks. Powerful women make them nervous.

 

My gripe with the character and the show is that they were both exceedingly dull. Hopefully, both fare better in the second season.

 

I like her, I feel some of it is a character choice. She does get more interesting when she’s more emotional expressive, but she does tend to go into Vulcan mode a lot. I think they can make that part of the story, especially as Spock comes in since he has a similar thing. If they actually make Spock’s more emotional performance part of the canon where in his younger days was more willing to embrace his human side while his human adoptive sister is also struggling with her dual human and Vulcan heritage. This could be the catalyst that sends both down different paths.