But I am hoping in time that they will try watching it or rewatching it and see some of what we Discovery lovers love about it. I love the depth of the characters. Burnham is an interesting character that I enjoy now though she bugged me to no end in the first two episodes. Sarek, Pike, Spock, and Number One were great additions and tied the series more to TOS and TNG.
I know you love Discovery much and I respect that. We all have different tastes after all. But when there is one thing I don´t see it is depth of the characters. Most of the bridge crew are zero flashed out so far. Everything centers around Burnham. The ultimate Mary Sue of everything who always has the right idea at the right time.
Anson Mount on the other hand was perfectly cast and well written. And as you said: It tied in nicely to the past, but so also took away much shine from the Discovery cast. Also and especially through the final moments of the last episode. Which somehow reminded me of "These are the Voyages" (aka a focus on the "wrong" crew). Many people are very hot for new adventures of Pike, not so much for more of Discovery.
And this "no one is allowed to mention the Discovery and her crew etc." to explain away canon contradicting stuff is simply bad writing. Let´s assume even if everyone in Starfleet would stick to it, what about the other species they met so far? Especially the Klingons. They wrote themselves into a corner with some decisions and opted for a lame way out of it.
Also as I said earlier in this thread in a way the show didn´t know clearly which kind of stories they wanted to tell exactly. Hence it started as a prequel and is now a sequel. I enjoyed some episodes and had fun watching Discovery. But there is much room for improvement yet. The coming season will decide the path for it imho.
I have a real problem with the term "Mary Sue." It reeks of sexism. When do you ever hear a male character dismissed and called "Mary Sue" or the male equivalent "Marty Stu?" Have you ever heard of any male character being called it ever? The male version is used so infrequently, if at all, that I had to google "male equivalent of Mary Sue" to even know what it was. Yet both Discovery's Burnham and Star Wars' Rey are both dismissed as Mary Sues. By dictionary.com "a Mary Sue is a term used to describe a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws." Almost every main character in every story, male and female, is someone who suceeds more often than they fail. The protagonist faces crisis after crisis and must overcome them. Nobody called Kirk a Marty Stu even though he did everything, was almost always right and often single-handedly beat the enemy computers with his "logic." Nobody called Picard a Marty Stu even though he was perfect in almost every regard and was almost always right. He would routinely go against his superior admirals and he would be proved right and the admiral's career would be over. Everyone on the Enterprise also idolized him and extolled his virtues numerous times to anyone that would listen. In DS9 Sisko was half god, literally a demigod. A commander that was put in charge of the most important station in the galaxy, made a religious figure to the local planet, led the fighting force against the Dominion, won, and single handedly beat the pah-wraiths. The Prophets even destroyed 1,000 Dominion ships thereby saving the Alpha Quadrant simply because Sisko asked them to. Nobody called him a Marty Stu. And Archer stopped the Suliban, stopped the Xindi threat, was given the katra of the most revered Vulcan philosopher and with it altered the whole vulcan society and single-handedly created the Federation and yet I have never heard him called Marty Stu either.
There are no Marty Stus. Because all male characters are written with strengths AND flaws. Thus are not "practically perfect in every way". That is what makes you a Mary Sue. If a character isn't the best at EVERYTHING and always perfect then they aren't a true Mary Sue.
But I am hoping in time that they will try watching it or rewatching it and see some of what we Discovery lovers love about it. I love the depth of the characters. Burnham is an interesting character that I enjoy now though she bugged me to no end in the first two episodes. Sarek, Pike, Spock, and Number One were great additions and tied the series more to TOS and TNG.
I know you love Discovery much and I respect that. We all have different tastes after all. But when there is one thing I don´t see it is depth of the characters. Most of the bridge crew are zero flashed out so far. Everything centers around Burnham. The ultimate Mary Sue of everything who always has the right idea at the right time.
Anson Mount on the other hand was perfectly cast and well written. And as you said: It tied in nicely to the past, but so also took away much shine from the Discovery cast. Also and especially through the final moments of the last episode. Which somehow reminded me of "These are the Voyages" (aka a focus on the "wrong" crew). Many people are very hot for new adventures of Pike, not so much for more of Discovery.
And this "no one is allowed to mention the Discovery and her crew etc." to explain away canon contradicting stuff is simply bad writing. Let´s assume even if everyone in Starfleet would stick to it, what about the other species they met so far? Especially the Klingons. They wrote themselves into a corner with some decisions and opted for a lame way out of it.
Also as I said earlier in this thread in a way the show didn´t know clearly which kind of stories they wanted to tell exactly. Hence it started as a prequel and is now a sequel. I enjoyed some episodes and had fun watching Discovery. But there is much room for improvement yet. The coming season will decide the path for it imho.
I have a real problem with the term "Mary Sue." It reeks of sexism. When do you ever hear a male character dismissed and called "Mary Sue" or the male equivalent "Marty Stu?" Have you ever heard of any male character being called it ever? The male version is used so infrequently, if at all, that I had to google "male equivalent of Mary Sue" to even know what it was. Yet both Discovery's Burnham and Star Wars' Rey are both dismissed as Mary Sues. By dictionary.com "a Mary Sue is a term used to describe a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws." Almost every main character in every story, male and female, is someone who suceeds more often than they fail. The protagonist faces crisis after crisis and must overcome them. Nobody called Kirk a Marty Stu even though he did everything, was almost always right and often single-handedly beat the enemy computers with his "logic." Nobody called Picard a Marty Stu even though he was perfect in almost every regard and was almost always right. He would routinely go against his superior admirals and he would be proved right and the admiral's career would be over. Everyone on the Enterprise also idolized him and extolled his virtues numerous times to anyone that would listen. In DS9 Sisko was half god, literally a demigod. A commander that was put in charge of the most important station in the galaxy, made a religious figure to the local planet, led the fighting force against the Dominion, won, and single handedly beat the pah-wraiths. The Prophets even destroyed 1,000 Dominion ships thereby saving the Alpha Quadrant simply because Sisko asked them to. Nobody called him a Marty Stu. And Archer stopped the Suliban, stopped the Xindi threat, was given the katra of the most revered Vulcan philosopher and with it altered the whole vulcan society and single-handedly created the Federation and yet I have never heard him called Marty Stu either.
There are no Marty Stus. Because all male characters are written with strengths AND flaws. Thus are not "practically perfect in every way". That is what makes you a Mary Sue. If a character isn't the best at EVERYTHING and always perfect then they aren't a true Mary Sue.
All you gotta do to disprove me is provide one example. I'm making it easy on people to enter the debate.
Wasn't Wesley Crusher a "Mary Stu"?
He was for the first season or two, I think. At some point the fans complained about it and the writers' started deepening the character and writing flaws, iirc.
But I am hoping in time that they will try watching it or rewatching it and see some of what we Discovery lovers love about it. I love the depth of the characters. Burnham is an interesting character that I enjoy now though she bugged me to no end in the first two episodes. Sarek, Pike, Spock, and Number One were great additions and tied the series more to TOS and TNG.
I know you love Discovery much and I respect that. We all have different tastes after all. But when there is one thing I don´t see it is depth of the characters. Most of the bridge crew are zero flashed out so far. Everything centers around Burnham. The ultimate Mary Sue of everything who always has the right idea at the right time.
Anson Mount on the other hand was perfectly cast and well written. And as you said: It tied in nicely to the past, but so also took away much shine from the Discovery cast. Also and especially through the final moments of the last episode. Which somehow reminded me of "These are the Voyages" (aka a focus on the "wrong" crew). Many people are very hot for new adventures of Pike, not so much for more of Discovery.
And this "no one is allowed to mention the Discovery and her crew etc." to explain away canon contradicting stuff is simply bad writing. Let´s assume even if everyone in Starfleet would stick to it, what about the other species they met so far? Especially the Klingons. They wrote themselves into a corner with some decisions and opted for a lame way out of it.
Also as I said earlier in this thread in a way the show didn´t know clearly which kind of stories they wanted to tell exactly. Hence it started as a prequel and is now a sequel. I enjoyed some episodes and had fun watching Discovery. But there is much room for improvement yet. The coming season will decide the path for it imho.
I have a real problem with the term "Mary Sue." It reeks of sexism. When do you ever hear a male character dismissed and called "Mary Sue" or the male equivalent "Marty Stu?" Have you ever heard of any male character being called it ever? The male version is used so infrequently, if at all, that I had to google "male equivalent of Mary Sue" to even know what it was. Yet both Discovery's Burnham and Star Wars' Rey are both dismissed as Mary Sues. By dictionary.com "a Mary Sue is a term used to describe a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws." Almost every main character in every story, male and female, is someone who suceeds more often than they fail. The protagonist faces crisis after crisis and must overcome them. Nobody called Kirk a Marty Stu even though he did everything, was almost always right and often single-handedly beat the enemy computers with his "logic." Nobody called Picard a Marty Stu even though he was perfect in almost every regard and was almost always right. He would routinely go against his superior admirals and he would be proved right and the admiral's career would be over. Everyone on the Enterprise also idolized him and extolled his virtues numerous times to anyone that would listen. In DS9 Sisko was half god, literally a demigod. A commander that was put in charge of the most important station in the galaxy, made a religious figure to the local planet, led the fighting force against the Dominion, won, and single handedly beat the pah-wraiths. The Prophets even destroyed 1,000 Dominion ships thereby saving the Alpha Quadrant simply because Sisko asked them to. Nobody called him a Marty Stu. And Archer stopped the Suliban, stopped the Xindi threat, was given the katra of the most revered Vulcan philosopher and with it altered the whole vulcan society and single-handedly created the Federation and yet I have never heard him called Marty Stu either.
There are no Marty Stus. Because all male characters are written with strengths AND flaws. Thus are not "practically perfect in every way". That is what makes you a Mary Sue. If a character isn't the best at EVERYTHING and always perfect then they aren't a true Mary Sue.
But I am hoping in time that they will try watching it or rewatching it and see some of what we Discovery lovers love about it. I love the depth of the characters. Burnham is an interesting character that I enjoy now though she bugged me to no end in the first two episodes. Sarek, Pike, Spock, and Number One were great additions and tied the series more to TOS and TNG.
I know you love Discovery much and I respect that. We all have different tastes after all. But when there is one thing I don´t see it is depth of the characters. Most of the bridge crew are zero flashed out so far. Everything centers around Burnham. The ultimate Mary Sue of everything who always has the right idea at the right time.
Anson Mount on the other hand was perfectly cast and well written. And as you said: It tied in nicely to the past, but so also took away much shine from the Discovery cast. Also and especially through the final moments of the last episode. Which somehow reminded me of "These are the Voyages" (aka a focus on the "wrong" crew). Many people are very hot for new adventures of Pike, not so much for more of Discovery.
And this "no one is allowed to mention the Discovery and her crew etc." to explain away canon contradicting stuff is simply bad writing. Let´s assume even if everyone in Starfleet would stick to it, what about the other species they met so far? Especially the Klingons. They wrote themselves into a corner with some decisions and opted for a lame way out of it.
Also as I said earlier in this thread in a way the show didn´t know clearly which kind of stories they wanted to tell exactly. Hence it started as a prequel and is now a sequel. I enjoyed some episodes and had fun watching Discovery. But there is much room for improvement yet. The coming season will decide the path for it imho.
I have a real problem with the term "Mary Sue." It reeks of sexism. When do you ever hear a male character dismissed and called "Mary Sue" or the male equivalent "Marty Stu?" Have you ever heard of any male character being called it ever? The male version is used so infrequently, if at all, that I had to google "male equivalent of Mary Sue" to even know what it was. Yet both Discovery's Burnham and Star Wars' Rey are both dismissed as Mary Sues. By dictionary.com "a Mary Sue is a term used to describe a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws." Almost every main character in every story, male and female, is someone who suceeds more often than they fail. The protagonist faces crisis after crisis and must overcome them. Nobody called Kirk a Marty Stu even though he did everything, was almost always right and often single-handedly beat the enemy computers with his "logic." Nobody called Picard a Marty Stu even though he was perfect in almost every regard and was almost always right. He would routinely go against his superior admirals and he would be proved right and the admiral's career would be over. Everyone on the Enterprise also idolized him and extolled his virtues numerous times to anyone that would listen. In DS9 Sisko was half god, literally a demigod. A commander that was put in charge of the most important station in the galaxy, made a religious figure to the local planet, led the fighting force against the Dominion, won, and single handedly beat the pah-wraiths. The Prophets even destroyed 1,000 Dominion ships thereby saving the Alpha Quadrant simply because Sisko asked them to. Nobody called him a Marty Stu. And Archer stopped the Suliban, stopped the Xindi threat, was given the katra of the most revered Vulcan philosopher and with it altered the whole vulcan society and single-handedly created the Federation and yet I have never heard him called Marty Stu either.
There are no Marty Stus. Because all male characters are written with strengths AND flaws. Thus are not "practically perfect in every way". That is what makes you a Mary Sue. If a character isn't the best at EVERYTHING and always perfect then they aren't a true Mary Sue.
But I am hoping in time that they will try watching it or rewatching it and see some of what we Discovery lovers love about it. I love the depth of the characters. Burnham is an interesting character that I enjoy now though she bugged me to no end in the first two episodes. Sarek, Pike, Spock, and Number One were great additions and tied the series more to TOS and TNG.
I know you love Discovery much and I respect that. We all have different tastes after all. But when there is one thing I don´t see it is depth of the characters. Most of the bridge crew are zero flashed out so far. Everything centers around Burnham. The ultimate Mary Sue of everything who always has the right idea at the right time.
Anson Mount on the other hand was perfectly cast and well written. And as you said: It tied in nicely to the past, but so also took away much shine from the Discovery cast. Also and especially through the final moments of the last episode. Which somehow reminded me of "These are the Voyages" (aka a focus on the "wrong" crew). Many people are very hot for new adventures of Pike, not so much for more of Discovery.
And this "no one is allowed to mention the Discovery and her crew etc." to explain away canon contradicting stuff is simply bad writing. Let´s assume even if everyone in Starfleet would stick to it, what about the other species they met so far? Especially the Klingons. They wrote themselves into a corner with some decisions and opted for a lame way out of it.
Also as I said earlier in this thread in a way the show didn´t know clearly which kind of stories they wanted to tell exactly. Hence it started as a prequel and is now a sequel. I enjoyed some episodes and had fun watching Discovery. But there is much room for improvement yet. The coming season will decide the path for it imho.
I have a real problem with the term "Mary Sue." It reeks of sexism. When do you ever hear a male character dismissed and called "Mary Sue" or the male equivalent "Marty Stu?" Have you ever heard of any male character being called it ever? The male version is used so infrequently, if at all, that I had to google "male equivalent of Mary Sue" to even know what it was. Yet both Discovery's Burnham and Star Wars' Rey are both dismissed as Mary Sues. By dictionary.com "a Mary Sue is a term used to describe a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws." Almost every main character in every story, male and female, is someone who suceeds more often than they fail. The protagonist faces crisis after crisis and must overcome them. Nobody called Kirk a Marty Stu even though he did everything, was almost always right and often single-handedly beat the enemy computers with his "logic." Nobody called Picard a Marty Stu even though he was perfect in almost every regard and was almost always right. He would routinely go against his superior admirals and he would be proved right and the admiral's career would be over. Everyone on the Enterprise also idolized him and extolled his virtues numerous times to anyone that would listen. In DS9 Sisko was half god, literally a demigod. A commander that was put in charge of the most important station in the galaxy, made a religious figure to the local planet, led the fighting force against the Dominion, won, and single handedly beat the pah-wraiths. The Prophets even destroyed 1,000 Dominion ships thereby saving the Alpha Quadrant simply because Sisko asked them to. Nobody called him a Marty Stu. And Archer stopped the Suliban, stopped the Xindi threat, was given the katra of the most revered Vulcan philosopher and with it altered the whole vulcan society and single-handedly created the Federation and yet I have never heard him called Marty Stu either.
There are no Marty Stus. Because all male characters are written with strengths AND flaws. Thus are not "practically perfect in every way". That is what makes you a Mary Sue. If a character isn't the best at EVERYTHING and always perfect then they aren't a true Mary Sue.
But I am hoping in time that they will try watching it or rewatching it and see some of what we Discovery lovers love about it. I love the depth of the characters. Burnham is an interesting character that I enjoy now though she bugged me to no end in the first two episodes. Sarek, Pike, Spock, and Number One were great additions and tied the series more to TOS and TNG.
I know you love Discovery much and I respect that. We all have different tastes after all. But when there is one thing I don´t see it is depth of the characters. Most of the bridge crew are zero flashed out so far. Everything centers around Burnham. The ultimate Mary Sue of everything who always has the right idea at the right time.
Anson Mount on the other hand was perfectly cast and well written. And as you said: It tied in nicely to the past, but so also took away much shine from the Discovery cast. Also and especially through the final moments of the last episode. Which somehow reminded me of "These are the Voyages" (aka a focus on the "wrong" crew). Many people are very hot for new adventures of Pike, not so much for more of Discovery.
And this "no one is allowed to mention the Discovery and her crew etc." to explain away canon contradicting stuff is simply bad writing. Let´s assume even if everyone in Starfleet would stick to it, what about the other species they met so far? Especially the Klingons. They wrote themselves into a corner with some decisions and opted for a lame way out of it.
Also as I said earlier in this thread in a way the show didn´t know clearly which kind of stories they wanted to tell exactly. Hence it started as a prequel and is now a sequel. I enjoyed some episodes and had fun watching Discovery. But there is much room for improvement yet. The coming season will decide the path for it imho.
I have a real problem with the term "Mary Sue." It reeks of sexism. When do you ever hear a male character dismissed and called "Mary Sue" or the male equivalent "Marty Stu?" Have you ever heard of any male character being called it ever? The male version is used so infrequently, if at all, that I had to google "male equivalent of Mary Sue" to even know what it was. Yet both Discovery's Burnham and Star Wars' Rey are both dismissed as Mary Sues. By dictionary.com "a Mary Sue is a term used to describe a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws." Almost every main character in every story, male and female, is someone who suceeds more often than they fail. The protagonist faces crisis after crisis and must overcome them. Nobody called Kirk a Marty Stu even though he did everything, was almost always right and often single-handedly beat the enemy computers with his "logic." Nobody called Picard a Marty Stu even though he was perfect in almost every regard and was almost always right. He would routinely go against his superior admirals and he would be proved right and the admiral's career would be over. Everyone on the Enterprise also idolized him and extolled his virtues numerous times to anyone that would listen. In DS9 Sisko was half god, literally a demigod. A commander that was put in charge of the most important station in the galaxy, made a religious figure to the local planet, led the fighting force against the Dominion, won, and single handedly beat the pah-wraiths. The Prophets even destroyed 1,000 Dominion ships thereby saving the Alpha Quadrant simply because Sisko asked them to. Nobody called him a Marty Stu. And Archer stopped the Suliban, stopped the Xindi threat, was given the katra of the most revered Vulcan philosopher and with it altered the whole vulcan society and single-handedly created the Federation and yet I have never heard him called Marty Stu either.
There are no Marty Stus. Because all male characters are written with strengths AND flaws. Thus are not "practically perfect in every way". That is what makes you a Mary Sue. If a character isn't the best at EVERYTHING and always perfect then they aren't a true Mary Sue.
But I am hoping in time that they will try watching it or rewatching it and see some of what we Discovery lovers love about it. I love the depth of the characters. Burnham is an interesting character that I enjoy now though she bugged me to no end in the first two episodes. Sarek, Pike, Spock, and Number One were great additions and tied the series more to TOS and TNG.
I know you love Discovery much and I respect that. We all have different tastes after all. But when there is one thing I don´t see it is depth of the characters. Most of the bridge crew are zero flashed out so far. Everything centers around Burnham. The ultimate Mary Sue of everything who always has the right idea at the right time.
Anson Mount on the other hand was perfectly cast and well written. And as you said: It tied in nicely to the past, but so also took away much shine from the Discovery cast. Also and especially through the final moments of the last episode. Which somehow reminded me of "These are the Voyages" (aka a focus on the "wrong" crew). Many people are very hot for new adventures of Pike, not so much for more of Discovery.
And this "no one is allowed to mention the Discovery and her crew etc." to explain away canon contradicting stuff is simply bad writing. Let´s assume even if everyone in Starfleet would stick to it, what about the other species they met so far? Especially the Klingons. They wrote themselves into a corner with some decisions and opted for a lame way out of it.
Also as I said earlier in this thread in a way the show didn´t know clearly which kind of stories they wanted to tell exactly. Hence it started as a prequel and is now a sequel. I enjoyed some episodes and had fun watching Discovery. But there is much room for improvement yet. The coming season will decide the path for it imho.
I have a real problem with the term "Mary Sue." It reeks of sexism. When do you ever hear a male character dismissed and called "Mary Sue" or the male equivalent "Marty Stu?" Have you ever heard of any male character being called it ever? The male version is used so infrequently, if at all, that I had to google "male equivalent of Mary Sue" to even know what it was. Yet both Discovery's Burnham and Star Wars' Rey are both dismissed as Mary Sues. By dictionary.com "a Mary Sue is a term used to describe a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws." Almost every main character in every story, male and female, is someone who suceeds more often than they fail. The protagonist faces crisis after crisis and must overcome them. Nobody called Kirk a Marty Stu even though he did everything, was almost always right and often single-handedly beat the enemy computers with his "logic." Nobody called Picard a Marty Stu even though he was perfect in almost every regard and was almost always right. He would routinely go against his superior admirals and he would be proved right and the admiral's career would be over. Everyone on the Enterprise also idolized him and extolled his virtues numerous times to anyone that would listen. In DS9 Sisko was half god, literally a demigod. A commander that was put in charge of the most important station in the galaxy, made a religious figure to the local planet, led the fighting force against the Dominion, won, and single handedly beat the pah-wraiths. The Prophets even destroyed 1,000 Dominion ships thereby saving the Alpha Quadrant simply because Sisko asked them to. Nobody called him a Marty Stu. And Archer stopped the Suliban, stopped the Xindi threat, was given the katra of the most revered Vulcan philosopher and with it altered the whole vulcan society and single-handedly created the Federation and yet I have never heard him called Marty Stu either.
There are no Marty Stus. Because all male characters are written with strengths AND flaws. Thus are not "practically perfect in every way". That is what makes you a Mary Sue. If a character isn't the best at EVERYTHING and always perfect then they aren't a true Mary Sue.
But I am hoping in time that they will try watching it or rewatching it and see some of what we Discovery lovers love about it. I love the depth of the characters. Burnham is an interesting character that I enjoy now though she bugged me to no end in the first two episodes. Sarek, Pike, Spock, and Number One were great additions and tied the series more to TOS and TNG.
I know you love Discovery much and I respect that. We all have different tastes after all. But when there is one thing I don´t see it is depth of the characters. Most of the bridge crew are zero flashed out so far. Everything centers around Burnham. The ultimate Mary Sue of everything who always has the right idea at the right time.
Anson Mount on the other hand was perfectly cast and well written. And as you said: It tied in nicely to the past, but so also took away much shine from the Discovery cast. Also and especially through the final moments of the last episode. Which somehow reminded me of "These are the Voyages" (aka a focus on the "wrong" crew). Many people are very hot for new adventures of Pike, not so much for more of Discovery.
And this "no one is allowed to mention the Discovery and her crew etc." to explain away canon contradicting stuff is simply bad writing. Let´s assume even if everyone in Starfleet would stick to it, what about the other species they met so far? Especially the Klingons. They wrote themselves into a corner with some decisions and opted for a lame way out of it.
Also as I said earlier in this thread in a way the show didn´t know clearly which kind of stories they wanted to tell exactly. Hence it started as a prequel and is now a sequel. I enjoyed some episodes and had fun watching Discovery. But there is much room for improvement yet. The coming season will decide the path for it imho.
I have a real problem with the term "Mary Sue." It reeks of sexism. When do you ever hear a male character dismissed and called "Mary Sue" or the male equivalent "Marty Stu?" Have you ever heard of any male character being called it ever? The male version is used so infrequently, if at all, that I had to google "male equivalent of Mary Sue" to even know what it was. Yet both Discovery's Burnham and Star Wars' Rey are both dismissed as Mary Sues. By dictionary.com "a Mary Sue is a term used to describe a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws." Almost every main character in every story, male and female, is someone who suceeds more often than they fail. The protagonist faces crisis after crisis and must overcome them. Nobody called Kirk a Marty Stu even though he did everything, was almost always right and often single-handedly beat the enemy computers with his "logic." Nobody called Picard a Marty Stu even though he was perfect in almost every regard and was almost always right. He would routinely go against his superior admirals and he would be proved right and the admiral's career would be over. Everyone on the Enterprise also idolized him and extolled his virtues numerous times to anyone that would listen. In DS9 Sisko was half god, literally a demigod. A commander that was put in charge of the most important station in the galaxy, made a religious figure to the local planet, led the fighting force against the Dominion, won, and single handedly beat the pah-wraiths. The Prophets even destroyed 1,000 Dominion ships thereby saving the Alpha Quadrant simply because Sisko asked them to. Nobody called him a Marty Stu. And Archer stopped the Suliban, stopped the Xindi threat, was given the katra of the most revered Vulcan philosopher and with it altered the whole vulcan society and single-handedly created the Federation and yet I have never heard him called Marty Stu either.
There are no Marty Stus. Because all male characters are written with strengths AND flaws. Thus are not "practically perfect in every way". That is what makes you a Mary Sue. If a character isn't the best at EVERYTHING and always perfect then they aren't a true Mary Sue.
But I am hoping in time that they will try watching it or rewatching it and see some of what we Discovery lovers love about it. I love the depth of the characters. Burnham is an interesting character that I enjoy now though she bugged me to no end in the first two episodes. Sarek, Pike, Spock, and Number One were great additions and tied the series more to TOS and TNG.
I know you love Discovery much and I respect that. We all have different tastes after all. But when there is one thing I don´t see it is depth of the characters. Most of the bridge crew are zero flashed out so far. Everything centers around Burnham. The ultimate Mary Sue of everything who always has the right idea at the right time.
Anson Mount on the other hand was perfectly cast and well written. And as you said: It tied in nicely to the past, but so also took away much shine from the Discovery cast. Also and especially through the final moments of the last episode. Which somehow reminded me of "These are the Voyages" (aka a focus on the "wrong" crew). Many people are very hot for new adventures of Pike, not so much for more of Discovery.
And this "no one is allowed to mention the Discovery and her crew etc." to explain away canon contradicting stuff is simply bad writing. Let´s assume even if everyone in Starfleet would stick to it, what about the other species they met so far? Especially the Klingons. They wrote themselves into a corner with some decisions and opted for a lame way out of it.
Also as I said earlier in this thread in a way the show didn´t know clearly which kind of stories they wanted to tell exactly. Hence it started as a prequel and is now a sequel. I enjoyed some episodes and had fun watching Discovery. But there is much room for improvement yet. The coming season will decide the path for it imho.
I have a real problem with the term "Mary Sue." It reeks of sexism. When do you ever hear a male character dismissed and called "Mary Sue" or the male equivalent "Marty Stu?" Have you ever heard of any male character being called it ever? The male version is used so infrequently, if at all, that I had to google "male equivalent of Mary Sue" to even know what it was. Yet both Discovery's Burnham and Star Wars' Rey are both dismissed as Mary Sues. By dictionary.com "a Mary Sue is a term used to describe a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws." Almost every main character in every story, male and female, is someone who suceeds more often than they fail. The protagonist faces crisis after crisis and must overcome them. Nobody called Kirk a Marty Stu even though he did everything, was almost always right and often single-handedly beat the enemy computers with his "logic." Nobody called Picard a Marty Stu even though he was perfect in almost every regard and was almost always right. He would routinely go against his superior admirals and he would be proved right and the admiral's career would be over. Everyone on the Enterprise also idolized him and extolled his virtues numerous times to anyone that would listen. In DS9 Sisko was half god, literally a demigod. A commander that was put in charge of the most important station in the galaxy, made a religious figure to the local planet, led the fighting force against the Dominion, won, and single handedly beat the pah-wraiths. The Prophets even destroyed 1,000 Dominion ships thereby saving the Alpha Quadrant simply because Sisko asked them to. Nobody called him a Marty Stu. And Archer stopped the Suliban, stopped the Xindi threat, was given the katra of the most revered Vulcan philosopher and with it altered the whole vulcan society and single-handedly created the Federation and yet I have never heard him called Marty Stu either.
There are no Marty Stus. Because all male characters are written with strengths AND flaws. Thus are not "practically perfect in every way". That is what makes you a Mary Sue. If a character isn't the best at EVERYTHING and always perfect then they aren't a true Mary Sue.
But I am hoping in time that they will try watching it or rewatching it and see some of what we Discovery lovers love about it. I love the depth of the characters. Burnham is an interesting character that I enjoy now though she bugged me to no end in the first two episodes. Sarek, Pike, Spock, and Number One were great additions and tied the series more to TOS and TNG.
I know you love Discovery much and I respect that. We all have different tastes after all. But when there is one thing I don´t see it is depth of the characters. Most of the bridge crew are zero flashed out so far. Everything centers around Burnham. The ultimate Mary Sue of everything who always has the right idea at the right time.
Anson Mount on the other hand was perfectly cast and well written. And as you said: It tied in nicely to the past, but so also took away much shine from the Discovery cast. Also and especially through the final moments of the last episode. Which somehow reminded me of "These are the Voyages" (aka a focus on the "wrong" crew). Many people are very hot for new adventures of Pike, not so much for more of Discovery.
And this "no one is allowed to mention the Discovery and her crew etc." to explain away canon contradicting stuff is simply bad writing. Let´s assume even if everyone in Starfleet would stick to it, what about the other species they met so far? Especially the Klingons. They wrote themselves into a corner with some decisions and opted for a lame way out of it.
Also as I said earlier in this thread in a way the show didn´t know clearly which kind of stories they wanted to tell exactly. Hence it started as a prequel and is now a sequel. I enjoyed some episodes and had fun watching Discovery. But there is much room for improvement yet. The coming season will decide the path for it imho.
I have a real problem with the term "Mary Sue." It reeks of sexism. When do you ever hear a male character dismissed and called "Mary Sue" or the male equivalent "Marty Stu?" Have you ever heard of any male character being called it ever? The male version is used so infrequently, if at all, that I had to google "male equivalent of Mary Sue" to even know what it was. Yet both Discovery's Burnham and Star Wars' Rey are both dismissed as Mary Sues. By dictionary.com "a Mary Sue is a term used to describe a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws." Almost every main character in every story, male and female, is someone who suceeds more often than they fail. The protagonist faces crisis after crisis and must overcome them. Nobody called Kirk a Marty Stu even though he did everything, was almost always right and often single-handedly beat the enemy computers with his "logic." Nobody called Picard a Marty Stu even though he was perfect in almost every regard and was almost always right. He would routinely go against his superior admirals and he would be proved right and the admiral's career would be over. Everyone on the Enterprise also idolized him and extolled his virtues numerous times to anyone that would listen. In DS9 Sisko was half god, literally a demigod. A commander that was put in charge of the most important station in the galaxy, made a religious figure to the local planet, led the fighting force against the Dominion, won, and single handedly beat the pah-wraiths. The Prophets even destroyed 1,000 Dominion ships thereby saving the Alpha Quadrant simply because Sisko asked them to. Nobody called him a Marty Stu. And Archer stopped the Suliban, stopped the Xindi threat, was given the katra of the most revered Vulcan philosopher and with it altered the whole vulcan society and single-handedly created the Federation and yet I have never heard him called Marty Stu either.
There are no Marty Stus. Because all male characters are written with strengths AND flaws. Thus are not "practically perfect in every way". That is what makes you a Mary Sue. If a character isn't the best at EVERYTHING and always perfect then they aren't a true Mary Sue.
But I am hoping in time that they will try watching it or rewatching it and see some of what we Discovery lovers love about it. I love the depth of the characters. Burnham is an interesting character that I enjoy now though she bugged me to no end in the first two episodes. Sarek, Pike, Spock, and Number One were great additions and tied the series more to TOS and TNG.
I know you love Discovery much and I respect that. We all have different tastes after all. But when there is one thing I don´t see it is depth of the characters. Most of the bridge crew are zero flashed out so far. Everything centers around Burnham. The ultimate Mary Sue of everything who always has the right idea at the right time.
Anson Mount on the other hand was perfectly cast and well written. And as you said: It tied in nicely to the past, but so also took away much shine from the Discovery cast. Also and especially through the final moments of the last episode. Which somehow reminded me of "These are the Voyages" (aka a focus on the "wrong" crew). Many people are very hot for new adventures of Pike, not so much for more of Discovery.
And this "no one is allowed to mention the Discovery and her crew etc." to explain away canon contradicting stuff is simply bad writing. Let´s assume even if everyone in Starfleet would stick to it, what about the other species they met so far? Especially the Klingons. They wrote themselves into a corner with some decisions and opted for a lame way out of it.
Also as I said earlier in this thread in a way the show didn´t know clearly which kind of stories they wanted to tell exactly. Hence it started as a prequel and is now a sequel. I enjoyed some episodes and had fun watching Discovery. But there is much room for improvement yet. The coming season will decide the path for it imho.
I have a real problem with the term "Mary Sue." It reeks of sexism. When do you ever hear a male character dismissed and called "Mary Sue" or the male equivalent "Marty Stu?" Have you ever heard of any male character being called it ever? The male version is used so infrequently, if at all, that I had to google "male equivalent of Mary Sue" to even know what it was. Yet both Discovery's Burnham and Star Wars' Rey are both dismissed as Mary Sues. By dictionary.com "a Mary Sue is a term used to describe a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws." Almost every main character in every story, male and female, is someone who suceeds more often than they fail. The protagonist faces crisis after crisis and must overcome them. Nobody called Kirk a Marty Stu even though he did everything, was almost always right and often single-handedly beat the enemy computers with his "logic." Nobody called Picard a Marty Stu even though he was perfect in almost every regard and was almost always right. He would routinely go against his superior admirals and he would be proved right and the admiral's career would be over. Everyone on the Enterprise also idolized him and extolled his virtues numerous times to anyone that would listen. In DS9 Sisko was half god, literally a demigod. A commander that was put in charge of the most important station in the galaxy, made a religious figure to the local planet, led the fighting force against the Dominion, won, and single handedly beat the pah-wraiths. The Prophets even destroyed 1,000 Dominion ships thereby saving the Alpha Quadrant simply because Sisko asked them to. Nobody called him a Marty Stu. And Archer stopped the Suliban, stopped the Xindi threat, was given the katra of the most revered Vulcan philosopher and with it altered the whole vulcan society and single-handedly created the Federation and yet I have never heard him called Marty Stu either.
There are no Marty Stus. Because all male characters are written with strengths AND flaws. Thus are not "practically perfect in every way". That is what makes you a Mary Sue. If a character isn't the best at EVERYTHING and always perfect then they aren't a true Mary Sue.
But I am hoping in time that they will try watching it or rewatching it and see some of what we Discovery lovers love about it. I love the depth of the characters. Burnham is an interesting character that I enjoy now though she bugged me to no end in the first two episodes. Sarek, Pike, Spock, and Number One were great additions and tied the series more to TOS and TNG.
I know you love Discovery much and I respect that. We all have different tastes after all. But when there is one thing I don´t see it is depth of the characters. Most of the bridge crew are zero flashed out so far. Everything centers around Burnham. The ultimate Mary Sue of everything who always has the right idea at the right time.
Anson Mount on the other hand was perfectly cast and well written. And as you said: It tied in nicely to the past, but so also took away much shine from the Discovery cast. Also and especially through the final moments of the last episode. Which somehow reminded me of "These are the Voyages" (aka a focus on the "wrong" crew). Many people are very hot for new adventures of Pike, not so much for more of Discovery.
And this "no one is allowed to mention the Discovery and her crew etc." to explain away canon contradicting stuff is simply bad writing. Let´s assume even if everyone in Starfleet would stick to it, what about the other species they met so far? Especially the Klingons. They wrote themselves into a corner with some decisions and opted for a lame way out of it.
Also as I said earlier in this thread in a way the show didn´t know clearly which kind of stories they wanted to tell exactly. Hence it started as a prequel and is now a sequel. I enjoyed some episodes and had fun watching Discovery. But there is much room for improvement yet. The coming season will decide the path for it imho.
I have a real problem with the term "Mary Sue." It reeks of sexism. When do you ever hear a male character dismissed and called "Mary Sue" or the male equivalent "Marty Stu?" Have you ever heard of any male character being called it ever? The male version is used so infrequently, if at all, that I had to google "male equivalent of Mary Sue" to even know what it was. Yet both Discovery's Burnham and Star Wars' Rey are both dismissed as Mary Sues. By dictionary.com "a Mary Sue is a term used to describe a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws." Almost every main character in every story, male and female, is someone who suceeds more often than they fail. The protagonist faces crisis after crisis and must overcome them. Nobody called Kirk a Marty Stu even though he did everything, was almost always right and often single-handedly beat the enemy computers with his "logic." Nobody called Picard a Marty Stu even though he was perfect in almost every regard and was almost always right. He would routinely go against his superior admirals and he would be proved right and the admiral's career would be over. Everyone on the Enterprise also idolized him and extolled his virtues numerous times to anyone that would listen. In DS9 Sisko was half god, literally a demigod. A commander that was put in charge of the most important station in the galaxy, made a religious figure to the local planet, led the fighting force against the Dominion, won, and single handedly beat the pah-wraiths. The Prophets even destroyed 1,000 Dominion ships thereby saving the Alpha Quadrant simply because Sisko asked them to. Nobody called him a Marty Stu. And Archer stopped the Suliban, stopped the Xindi threat, was given the katra of the most revered Vulcan philosopher and with it altered the whole vulcan society and single-handedly created the Federation and yet I have never heard him called Marty Stu either.
There are no Marty Stus. Because all male characters are written with strengths AND flaws. Thus are not "practically perfect in every way". That is what makes you a Mary Sue. If a character isn't the best at EVERYTHING and always perfect then they aren't a true Mary Sue.
But I am hoping in time that they will try watching it or rewatching it and see some of what we Discovery lovers love about it. I love the depth of the characters. Burnham is an interesting character that I enjoy now though she bugged me to no end in the first two episodes. Sarek, Pike, Spock, and Number One were great additions and tied the series more to TOS and TNG.
I know you love Discovery much and I respect that. We all have different tastes after all. But when there is one thing I don´t see it is depth of the characters. Most of the bridge crew are zero flashed out so far. Everything centers around Burnham. The ultimate Mary Sue of everything who always has the right idea at the right time.
Anson Mount on the other hand was perfectly cast and well written. And as you said: It tied in nicely to the past, but so also took away much shine from the Discovery cast. Also and especially through the final moments of the last episode. Which somehow reminded me of "These are the Voyages" (aka a focus on the "wrong" crew). Many people are very hot for new adventures of Pike, not so much for more of Discovery.
And this "no one is allowed to mention the Discovery and her crew etc." to explain away canon contradicting stuff is simply bad writing. Let´s assume even if everyone in Starfleet would stick to it, what about the other species they met so far? Especially the Klingons. They wrote themselves into a corner with some decisions and opted for a lame way out of it.
Also as I said earlier in this thread in a way the show didn´t know clearly which kind of stories they wanted to tell exactly. Hence it started as a prequel and is now a sequel. I enjoyed some episodes and had fun watching Discovery. But there is much room for improvement yet. The coming season will decide the path for it imho.
I have a real problem with the term "Mary Sue." It reeks of sexism. When do you ever hear a male character dismissed and called "Mary Sue" or the male equivalent "Marty Stu?" Have you ever heard of any male character being called it ever? The male version is used so infrequently, if at all, that I had to google "male equivalent of Mary Sue" to even know what it was. Yet both Discovery's Burnham and Star Wars' Rey are both dismissed as Mary Sues. By dictionary.com "a Mary Sue is a term used to describe a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws." Almost every main character in every story, male and female, is someone who suceeds more often than they fail. The protagonist faces crisis after crisis and must overcome them. Nobody called Kirk a Marty Stu even though he did everything, was almost always right and often single-handedly beat the enemy computers with his "logic." Nobody called Picard a Marty Stu even though he was perfect in almost every regard and was almost always right. He would routinely go against his superior admirals and he would be proved right and the admiral's career would be over. Everyone on the Enterprise also idolized him and extolled his virtues numerous times to anyone that would listen. In DS9 Sisko was half god, literally a demigod. A commander that was put in charge of the most important station in the galaxy, made a religious figure to the local planet, led the fighting force against the Dominion, won, and single handedly beat the pah-wraiths. The Prophets even destroyed 1,000 Dominion ships thereby saving the Alpha Quadrant simply because Sisko asked them to. Nobody called him a Marty Stu. And Archer stopped the Suliban, stopped the Xindi threat, was given the katra of the most revered Vulcan philosopher and with it altered the whole vulcan society and single-handedly created the Federation and yet I have never heard him called Marty Stu either.
There are no Marty Stus. Because all male characters are written with strengths AND flaws. Thus are not "practically perfect in every way". That is what makes you a Mary Sue. If a character isn't the best at EVERYTHING and always perfect then they aren't a true Mary Sue.
All you gotta do to disprove me is provide one example. I'm making it easy on people to enter the debate.
Wasn't Wesley Crusher a "Mary Stu"?
Wesley couldn’t have been, because he wasn’t the main focus of the show.
I don't think being the lead is required to be a Sue/Stu. Maybe he was one, I can't decide. The "child prodigy" trope counters the Marty Stu argument slightly and has many of the same problems and complaints just like a previous comment touched on. There's a reason he was the least liked character and people complained. As I recall though he never out sciences data, or out commands Picard, which is what created the Mary Sue trope from the TOS fanfic. Also wes routinely was portrayed as totally overwhelmed.
Regardless of the origins, meaning, intent or real/perceived perceptions surrounding the term "mary sue", I have a hard time understanding how it can be applied to Michael Burnham. Having watched the first two seasons of Discovery (hated most of season 1), I can't help but view the character as the exact opposite of a "mary sue" type.
The story is told through Burnham's eyes, so as to give us an insight into the character and the various things she's dealing with. The character is anything but perfect, and is definitely flawed. In fact, it was her own inflated ego that resulted in her taking actions that were a key catalyst in the outbreak of the Klingon war and, ultimately, the death of her Captain and mentor.
Burnham's fundamental flaw was believing that the combination of her own intelligence and biased logic from her Vulcan upbringing was unflappable. She definitely had a sense of moral, logical and strategical superiority, which viewers got a sense of during Discovery's first few shows. However, I think critics forgot that the story was being told through her eyes, so that slant was intended to give viewers insight about how Burnham approached the world. We saw what Burnham saw, which was to perceive herself as being superior to the point of being perfect; the show wasn't presenting her as a 'mary sue' character.
Burnham's character arc involved her hitting rock-bottom (ie: court martial and the death of her captain/mentor) and being forced to come to the realization that she was not the least bit superior. I daresay she was humbled, and forced to build/rebuild her reputation, personal relationships and Starfleet rank. It was only after she admitted she didn't have/know all the answers and was just as dependent on her friends and crewmates as they were on her, that she was able to gain their trust.
To somewhat tie this rant into the thread, I am happy to see more of Burnham's crewmates added to the game, and look forward to continued development of the secondary characters on Discovery in season 3.
But I am hoping in time that they will try watching it or rewatching it and see some of what we Discovery lovers love about it. I love the depth of the characters. Burnham is an interesting character that I enjoy now though she bugged me to no end in the first two episodes. Sarek, Pike, Spock, and Number One were great additions and tied the series more to TOS and TNG.
I know you love Discovery much and I respect that. We all have different tastes after all. But when there is one thing I don´t see it is depth of the characters. Most of the bridge crew are zero flashed out so far. Everything centers around Burnham. The ultimate Mary Sue of everything who always has the right idea at the right time.
Anson Mount on the other hand was perfectly cast and well written. And as you said: It tied in nicely to the past, but so also took away much shine from the Discovery cast. Also and especially through the final moments of the last episode. Which somehow reminded me of "These are the Voyages" (aka a focus on the "wrong" crew). Many people are very hot for new adventures of Pike, not so much for more of Discovery.
And this "no one is allowed to mention the Discovery and her crew etc." to explain away canon contradicting stuff is simply bad writing. Let´s assume even if everyone in Starfleet would stick to it, what about the other species they met so far? Especially the Klingons. They wrote themselves into a corner with some decisions and opted for a lame way out of it.
Also as I said earlier in this thread in a way the show didn´t know clearly which kind of stories they wanted to tell exactly. Hence it started as a prequel and is now a sequel. I enjoyed some episodes and had fun watching Discovery. But there is much room for improvement yet. The coming season will decide the path for it imho.
I have a real problem with the term "Mary Sue." It reeks of sexism. When do you ever hear a male character dismissed and called "Mary Sue" or the male equivalent "Marty Stu?" Have you ever heard of any male character being called it ever? The male version is used so infrequently, if at all, that I had to google "male equivalent of Mary Sue" to even know what it was. Yet both Discovery's Burnham and Star Wars' Rey are both dismissed as Mary Sues. By dictionary.com "a Mary Sue is a term used to describe a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws." Almost every main character in every story, male and female, is someone who suceeds more often than they fail. The protagonist faces crisis after crisis and must overcome them. Nobody called Kirk a Marty Stu even though he did everything, was almost always right and often single-handedly beat the enemy computers with his "logic." Nobody called Picard a Marty Stu even though he was perfect in almost every regard and was almost always right. He would routinely go against his superior admirals and he would be proved right and the admiral's career would be over. Everyone on the Enterprise also idolized him and extolled his virtues numerous times to anyone that would listen. In DS9 Sisko was half god, literally a demigod. A commander that was put in charge of the most important station in the galaxy, made a religious figure to the local planet, led the fighting force against the Dominion, won, and single handedly beat the pah-wraiths. The Prophets even destroyed 1,000 Dominion ships thereby saving the Alpha Quadrant simply because Sisko asked them to. Nobody called him a Marty Stu. And Archer stopped the Suliban, stopped the Xindi threat, was given the katra of the most revered Vulcan philosopher and with it altered the whole vulcan society and single-handedly created the Federation and yet I have never heard him called Marty Stu either.
There are no Marty Stus. Because all male characters are written with strengths AND flaws. Thus are not "practically perfect in every way". That is what makes you a Mary Sue. If a character isn't the best at EVERYTHING and always perfect then they aren't a true Mary Sue.
All you gotta do to disprove me is provide one example. I'm making it easy on people to enter the debate.
Wasn't Wesley Crusher a "Mary Stu"?
Wesley couldn’t have been, because he wasn’t the main focus of the show.
I don't think being the lead is required to be a Sue/Stu. Maybe he was one, I can't decide. The "child prodigy" trope counters the Marty Stu argument slightly and has many of the same problems and complaints just like a previous comment touched on. There's a reason he was the least liked character and people complained. As I recall though he never out sciences data, or out commands Picard, which is what created the Mary Sue trope from the TOS fanfic. Also wes routinely was portrayed as totally overwhelmed.
Being the main focus is absolutely integral to the Mary Sue trope. A character that is super special and everyone loves and/or follows with them being the main character of the story
@Webberoni I’m not totally convinced she is a Mary Sue, but it’s hard to ignore that the Burnham character exhibits a lot of the traits. Some of the most common are the character having a strange name that’s commented on by other characters (everyone in season one talking about how weird it was that her name was Michael), being inserted into an established story even if it doesn’t make much sense (Burnham being Spock’s sister), being so special that basically the universe revolves around you (I mean...). She’s not even in command, and yet everyone obeys her. Even the actual captain bends to her will and goes along with whatever she says, which is funny enough exactly like the original Mary Sue character from that Trek fanzine back in the day.
For me, Michael Burnham being or not being a Mary Sue is irrelevant, because at the end of the day, they just packed so much insane plot into her backstory and character, that it just makes it impossible to relate to her on any level and it’s just not interesting.
Comments
...is there a gender-neutral term we can apply to the giant bird?
Maybe Sue?
Giant and bird are both gender neutral. ... Never mind. Too obvious.
You cant fight it.
Just let it happen...
Here, let me show you:
Wasn't Wesley Crusher a "Mary Stu"?
He was for the first season or two, I think. At some point the fans complained about it and the writers' started deepening the character and writing flaws, iirc.
He always gets an A
I thought it was Larry Stu.
Anybody know what happened to Peggy Sue.
Johnny Cash was a boy named Sue
And Ricky Nelson tried to court the cousin, Mary Lou.
I thought Mary Sue lived in Whoville with Cindy Lou Who.
I hear they’ve been all over the place just ask the beach boys.
I thought Who was on first?
You are correct. But I'm pretty sure that's an uncle of hers.
Who is wallowing in a teenage wasteland
Best post in this thread.
How so? I thought everyone knows that the bird is the word
I hadn’t heard about the bird.
He hangs out with papa oo mow mow
Wesley couldn’t have been, because he wasn’t the main focus of the show.
I don't think being the lead is required to be a Sue/Stu. Maybe he was one, I can't decide. The "child prodigy" trope counters the Marty Stu argument slightly and has many of the same problems and complaints just like a previous comment touched on. There's a reason he was the least liked character and people complained. As I recall though he never out sciences data, or out commands Picard, which is what created the Mary Sue trope from the TOS fanfic. Also wes routinely was portrayed as totally overwhelmed.
The story is told through Burnham's eyes, so as to give us an insight into the character and the various things she's dealing with. The character is anything but perfect, and is definitely flawed. In fact, it was her own inflated ego that resulted in her taking actions that were a key catalyst in the outbreak of the Klingon war and, ultimately, the death of her Captain and mentor.
Burnham's fundamental flaw was believing that the combination of her own intelligence and biased logic from her Vulcan upbringing was unflappable. She definitely had a sense of moral, logical and strategical superiority, which viewers got a sense of during Discovery's first few shows. However, I think critics forgot that the story was being told through her eyes, so that slant was intended to give viewers insight about how Burnham approached the world. We saw what Burnham saw, which was to perceive herself as being superior to the point of being perfect; the show wasn't presenting her as a 'mary sue' character.
Burnham's character arc involved her hitting rock-bottom (ie: court martial and the death of her captain/mentor) and being forced to come to the realization that she was not the least bit superior. I daresay she was humbled, and forced to build/rebuild her reputation, personal relationships and Starfleet rank. It was only after she admitted she didn't have/know all the answers and was just as dependent on her friends and crewmates as they were on her, that she was able to gain their trust.
To somewhat tie this rant into the thread, I am happy to see more of Burnham's crewmates added to the game, and look forward to continued development of the secondary characters on Discovery in season 3.
Being the main focus is absolutely integral to the Mary Sue trope. A character that is super special and everyone loves and/or follows with them being the main character of the story
For me, Michael Burnham being or not being a Mary Sue is irrelevant, because at the end of the day, they just packed so much insane plot into her backstory and character, that it just makes it impossible to relate to her on any level and it’s just not interesting.
+
Michael Keaton may very well be my favorite non-Trek actor. (Unless I somehow missed it or forgot him in an episode.)
Michael Keaton was a stage hand for Mr. Rogers. That makes him super cool in my book
Well, now...this changes things a bit. RIP my thumbs.