Is Michael Burnham A Mary Sue? | Star Trek: Discovery Discussion

[@Ketwolski]

CHANNEL OPEN: The information presented in this video are my own opinions, they aren't facts. I'm not saying that you are wrong for thinking one way or another, just that when I look at the evidence presented, this was my final conclusion. With that being said, do YOU think Michael Burnham is a Mary Sue? Why or why not? SOUND OFF!

[@katakisLives]

well it depends on the rules you set for the universe that you are making! you look at Rey her force sensitivity and midi chlorian count is probably up to the level of anakin at his peak so the idea a lot of force skills could be easy for her makes a lot of sense, remember when a young anakin blew up that trade federation ship all by himself in the prequels

[@silverbullet1620]

Y'know I created a character that could be seen as a Mary Sue by that logic. But I tried to set up my other characters as ensemble characters around her. She's a highly intelligent Orion girl who is trained to her strengths and all she wants to be is a pilot. Like Wesley, she was given a position on her adopted father's ship, but at an NCO's rank and not Acting Ensign. Also how old does an Orion have to be to be considered an adult? Do I like Burnham, no clue. But I can use her in my stories. Do I like Star Trek Discovery, no. Take that as you will.

[@captainrgd1565]

Isn't Kirk, Sisko, Picard, Janeway, Archer a marry sue why just Michael?

[@katakisLives]

@@captainrgd1565 I know the definition originates in the 70's but i swear i never even heard the term mary sue until a few years ago,

[@Ketwolski]

@@katakisLivescheck ot this interview with Paula Smith where talks about its origins in more depth if you interested: journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/view/243/205

[@aliceoeffinger6068]

Well done! She could have been a great character but I'm all Burn-ham out =) I rolled my eyes so hard when Airam said, "It's all because of you ... everything is because of you!" --- Definitely a Mary Sue!

[@interstellarsurfer]

Oh, no - that's just the CBS writers calling out the fans ironically. 🙄 ...or an honest admission.

[@Uncle_Baby_Billy]

He was referring to the horrible ratings

[@ronplatz7202]

Agreed it is getting old and Discovery in general is exhausting to watch, pick a lane, pick a story, stick with it. It is hard remain invested in the characters and overall story if they reset it all every season.

[@Knightfall182]

Michael Boredom is a modern day Mary Sue, by the current definition. They literally turned her into a superhero Red Angel this season that everyone has been worshiping from the start. See Major Grin's compilation of Michael Burnham Mary Sue scenes. Is this intentional? Yep. My theory is that the writers room has a specific goal to interest more Women in STEM and the Sciences....so there is a lot of very clear 'girl power' affirmations on this series. Because they are CW writers...it isn't subtle.

[@SC-mq1eh]

ohhh how dastardly of those writers to push an agenda to have "specific goal to interest more Women in STEM and the Sciences" - if they had only shown burnham and tilly baking more cakes, youd feel less threatend!!

[@scoutiii8893]

S C unfortunately, most people don’t like her character. Period. If that threatens you, then... 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@SC-mq1eh]

@@scoutiii8893 im not threatened by or the biggest fan of burnham to begin with - i just dont feel the need to label her with a suspect and subjective label

[@dramonmaster222]

So in conclusion, she is a Mary Sue.

[@Ketwolski]

Pretty much...at least in my opinion.

[@estherbarba1409]

@@Ketwolski I don't say she is not, I just say that in my opinion she's held to a higher standard than other characters in the franchise. How can she avoid being a Mary Sue? She's forced to be one just to get along!

[@Ketwolski]

@@estherbarba1409 Ill be the first to admit I might have a cognitive blindspot for some of the characters I grew up with. Perhaps another video reviewing them in more detail is warranted :)

[@aegisgfx]

Id pay good money to see a 2 part episode of discovery entitled, "The long slow death of Michael Burhnam"

[@estherbarba1409]

@@aegisgfx Why???

[@PRicanGeek]

A very smart and well put together piece. I've always agreed that the extreme Burnham viewpoint has tarnished the franchise, but the breathtaking vitriol that has come out of this has left a sour taste in my mouth. This was a refreshing, intelligent and balanced look at the issue, in my opinion.

[@thezzzaappp]

I think that their is a tendency for female characters to be Sues because a lot of writers are afraid that showing them fail or have flaws will make them seem weak. Whereas with a male character they feel more comfortable breaking them down since their more accepted as strong in general. Also my standards are a little lower because I would call Weasley a Sue. While yes he was a secondary character in every episode that centered on him (expect 1st duty) and hell even when he made appearances the world seemed to revolve around him. Mainly because the finest people in Star Fleet with years of experience where unable to solve big problems but this 15 year old could.

[@wetlazer2443]

A 'SUE' Crusher was NOT. First off he was NOT immediately, and inexplicably, loved, and accepted by all of the other characters like Rey from Star Wars was. Second, he had to train to learn his role in Star Fleet, unlike Rey from Star Wars. He was NOT played as a genius, smarter than everyone, Burnham is played as smarter than everyone.

[@jeremymain7303]

Crusher was disliked by everyone and only won respect in the end, barely. BM is just protayed as being the supreme being.

[@richard77231]

Three words demonstrate Crusher wasn't universally accepted....SHUT UP WESLEY! :)

[@wetlazer2443]

@@richard77231 EXACTLY! And Wesley didn't suddenly and inexplicably learn to single handedly pilot The Enterprise better than anyone after only being at the helm once, the way Rey did.

[@travisharris3529]

The Traveler effectively said Wesley is the next stage of human evolution. That is his the origin of his capabilities, and why Picard gave him so much time training on the Enterprise. Wesley uses these abilities with the Traveler throughout the series, culminating in him fucking off in season 7 to be an interdimensional being.

[@bdbensley]

yep Mary Sue. the few show i actually watched did everything to make her the center, and if not the center, either to the direct right or left of center in that the center person had to at least look at her for the go ahead!!!!! That is why I no longer watch the show. Hell, give Tilly the lead and I would watch every episode, she has faults and flaws!

[@pattheman3686]

Actually, it's extremely easy to find someone who fits into the Sue family in today's modern age. Her name is Rey. Plain and simple. You cannot tell me she isn't a Marie Sue. That would either be a lie or denial. She starts out not even 100% sure that the Jedi and The Force are real things. (That alone - given the time frame - is stupid enough. She's old enough to have at the very least heard First hand stories of the Jedi and the Force).to being able to mind control someone - an ability even Jedi masters have difficulty with on occasion AND fighting off a very well trained Skywalker in a lightsaber battle after touching a lightsaber for the first time. Rey makes absolutely NO mistakes whatsoever.

[@usernameluis305]

In comparison, burnham only makes mistakes to further the plot, and shes the only one that is allowed to make mistakes, everyone else is just unlucky to get caught up in it

[@levkamenev3904]

Great video, I think this helped me sort through my feelings on the show as a whole. I still definitely enjoy discovery, and Michael Burnham as a character. I think my biggest problem is that the universe seems to revolve around her and she has to be the solution to most problems. I think I would like a return to a more ensemble cast approach and to see more plots that focus around other characters.

[@Nalebranc]

I think the show revolving around just her is my biggest problem with it. A lot of the characters I don’t even know their names aside from Tilley (Filly? Scully? Curly?), Stetman (Staton? Spengler?), the Empress- excuse me, Emperor (we don’t want to imply she’s weak by giving her the feminine form of emperor despite being the same title), Doug Jones, and Son of None. All those other characters are really backdrops to someone who’s pretty average by Trek standards. Oh and she isn’t the 1st Black lead. Uhura, LaForge, Worf, and CAPTAIN freaking Sisko.

[@RimaNari]

Love that last bit. Even if she is a Mary Sue, doesn't change the fact that the character is enjoyed by many people, and that's completely fine. In this day and age we try much too hard to dictate things for other people, however the discussion whether Michael is a Mary Sue is independent from that. Or should be.

[@RimaNari]

@bruce wayne Yea, Dicovery's writing is objectively flawed. Burnham being a Mary Sue character is one, or the central, aspect of this, as discussed in this video. However, if people still enjoy the show, good for them. But I agree... we shouldn't be scared about discussing some objective shortcomings of Discovery, even if it triggers the fans. It's a two-sided thing, a balance act as always in life: one should respect the people who like Discovery, yet one should be allowed to criticize it objectively.

[@Kanthannic]

@@RimaNari The problem is when you criticize the show objectively there are literally so many bad things it's not even worth a spit. The vast majority of people don't even bother at this point. Orville all the way baby.

[@Kanthannic]

@bruce wayne And here's a fair reply that you probably have never received before. The reason why The Orville exists is because of the disgrace of STD, Seth McFarland bid to CBS to film ST before, but CBS rejected him and instead went for the JJtrek (which also failed) crew. So Seth went to Fox, used the same ideas, but added a bit of comedy in the show to convince the executives since Seth is known for comedy, and once The Orville is secured, Seth reduced the comedy and makes the show even more Trek like thus S2 and on wards. If you watched any of Seth interviews you would know that other than paying homage to ST, another reason why Seth created The Orville is because of the lack of weekly based TV shows in recent years, such as DS9 and Voyager. he called such shows "the idea of the week". So firstly, The Orville wouldnt even exist alongside DS9 and VOY in the first place, and secondly no, The Orville has never been about comedy, nor do people watch it for comedy. Saying that it'll fail due to being "an unfunny spoof of trek" just exposes your bias as well as how little you know about The Orville. Lastly, allow me to also raise a fair question. Does a completely unrealistic and hypothetical scenario that uses "i bet" as an argument prove that STD is not an utter all round failure, culturally and financially, and that despite of the objective popularity and success of The Orville, the show is actually not the current true successor to Trek?

[@Kanthannic]

@bruce wayne I never said what your biases are, i just said that you were biased against the orville, which was completely justified based on your previous reply (and still is based on your current reply), calm your tits lmao. Furthermore, i said nobody watches the show for the comedy because nobody does. Find me someone that says "Wow the orville is such a great comedy show i can't wait to watch it tonight." Like seriously? Don't come here crying about assumptions like a little snowflake when you know my statement is true. The Orville is praised for its writing and characters, its Trek like adventures and creative stories, with a sprinkle of light hearted comedy at the right moments, not the other way around. Seth himself said that comedy is not the main aspect of the show so it was cut down, don't be a hypocrite. I thought this was going to be an honest discussion, not an PC shoutfest. Then you proceed to complain about "vitriol" when you literally just spent a whole paragraph ranting, wow great job, as expected from an STD supporter. You should also take a look at your "fair question" comment, it reeks of sarcasm and assumptions (like actual assumptions) so why are you complaining about me being bitter, you are obviously the bitter one here, also, your first question wasn't really a question either, and you are the person here replying angrily, so you literally just debunked everything you said yourself. Last but not least, after all that ranting, you finally attempted to respond, however not before mockingly claiming that i only SORT OF answered your "question". I am here to inform you that, unfortunately, you did nothing but rant and expose your hypocrisy, failing COMPLETELY to answer my question. You literally just wrote a whole paragraph of fancy english literature with fancy descriptions and a fancy metaphor, ZERO content, ZERO proof, ZERO argument, and you mock me for "sort of" answering you??? What a joke, like STD. P.S. No idea what you're on about in EDIT.

[@amaxamon]

Not enough people. They won't release viewing numbers, I don't know anyone who even knows the show exists. Bad writing is bad writing. They still have to create credible characters with plausible motivations.

[@AwesomeSauceShow]

Awesome video! Didn't know that about the origin of the Sue characters in Trek.

[@RRTNZ]

I liked Burnham as a character, but as the show went on the messianic stuff ( that she's responsible for everything that happens in the ST universe, and was destined to save the galaxy because her mom invented time travel for her to do so, and she's Spock's older sister who saved him.....FFS !) Over time that just pissed me off. Can't even watch Discovery now.

[@phendformyself]

Definitely a Mary Sue. Early on I dismissed critics as "misogynists", "out of touch", and "not real Star Trek fans". Started watching late 2019, and by episode 2, I knew it was going to be tough to have any sympathy/empathy for Burnham. The writers seem more apt for Reality television, rather than sociological/philosophical Sci-Fi works.

[@Ketwolski]

I hope you tough through S1 and get into the S2, the quality does improve.

[@Sidharthavicious]

@@Ketwolski I agree. I've binged the entire series in a few days and I think it has definitely gotten better, though I do have major issues with it still.

[@Trekspertise]

Oh boy...

[@DaddyJamesFilms]

I agree with you but I would have used Captain Kirk as a gary sue instead of Wesley Crusher. think about it, almost every episode was revolved around him. most of the stuff on your recipe list he would get a check. what do you think? its funny, most people forget that original series wasn't really an ensemble cast either. most of the episodes were revolves around Kirk, Spock, and sometimes McCoy? so I am puzzled when people act like Star Trek has always been a ensemble cast.

[@singletona082]

I think he used Wheasley because of the hate sink status he had at the time. That said I was hoping he would have talked more about Kirk vs Bermun.

[@DaddyJamesFilms]

@@singletona082 yeah figure thats why he used Wesley.

[@DaddyJamesFilms]

@bruce wayne not sure if I can agree with you on that. well kinda..lol. there's a few characters that Michael looked up to. Philippa Georgiou, saru, Sarek. her mom etc. so she doesn't really fit in that category. most of the examples of what Ketwolski was talking about kinda fits with Kirk as well.

[@Vipre-]

If he'd have used Kirk the score would've been maybe a 0.5/3 Kirk hits none of box 1 or 2 and barely box 3. He's not the strongest, smartest, or most sympathetic, let alone any of those dialed to 11. The events of the episodes generally go in the crew's favor but the universe doesn't bend around him. He's good in one general area, command, but for everything else he defers to someone else. The skill he does have is backed up by years of service in Starfleet with backstory peppered throughout the series. Spock actually would score higher.

[@DaddyJamesFilms]

@@Vipre- as I said in my original post, most of the episodes were revolves around Kirk, Spock, and sometimes McCoy? but most of the episodes were centered around Kirk he would be the one making all the decisions and he will be the one taking action and saving the day most of the time. I will say that Michael Burnham still beats him out as far as a Mary Sue he is not that bad. but I think he fits that criteria better than Wesley Crusher. also you got to keep in mind that the show back then was centered around mostly two characters it wasn't an ensemble cast like it was in the 90's sure the other crew members might get some screen time but most of the time they would just backup characters. think about it, how many episodes did you see that was centered around any other crew members?

[@ascii7085]

What mistakes has Michael Burnham made?

[@katakisLives]

The thing about Michael Barnum and Star trek discovery is they were trying to cram an awful lot into a very short series with that is likely only to last a few seasons, that means a lot has to be done within that short period, surely we don't need a montage to explain that a lot of starfleet officers are highly skilled at a lot of things surely star trek precedent should take care of that! and as for Wesley Crusher maybe he's some kind of child prodigy, sometimes people are naturally just smart, they have been blessed with good genes

[@90lancaster]

An ensemble cast enables the skills to be spread around - the desire to make Burnham centre of attention - forces her in to places she has no reason to be. Heck for the entire Season Two did she even have a proper job- with Pike in Charge that made Saru tacit 1st officer and Burham was left hanging.

[@FortoFight]

Mary Sues do occasionally exist in real life. But do people think they're well-rounded, likeable people? Of course not. Literal Mary Sues are arrogant know-it-alls.

[@troffle]

Wesley Crusher was very definitely, explicitly a child prodigy with what ended up being supernatural abilities.

[@usernameluis305]

"That means a lot has to be done in a short period of time" Like k*lling tkuvma in 2 to 3 episodes flat?

[@DJRonnieG]

Although I didn't like her arguably borderline insubordinate "know it all" attitude, I remember reading the profile cards from a Captain Kirk action figure and general reading about Janeway and Riker. All three of them were Mary Sues of sorts. Riker is a awesome pilot and a ladies man. Kirk is an awesome pilot too apparently although I don't think I've ever witnessed it and Janeway was a super duper honor student who. Janeway also has proven to be able to fix things as well as pilot, although her trust of Tom Paris seems to indicate that he's still a better pilot and she doesn't act like a know-it-all since she take input from Harry, Tom, and others subordinates.

[@viktoriavanleeuwen3459]

Yes I think the part that bothers me, is that Burnham always thinks her way is the best way. Let some other people shine on the show also, already! Although TOS was a Kirk centered show, he did welcome the opinions of McCoy and Spock before making decisions, so Kirk is okay. Does Michael take advice from Spock and the crew around her on a regular basis, and make her a captain already if you want her to make all the best decisions or sacrifices. Or don't make her a captain! That might be too much to take. From mutineer to captain in 3 seasons, talk about career advancement. Hey, despite all I still like the show, just not all the decisions of the writers or showrunners.

[@usernameluis305]

None of those characters forced the entire universe to be re-written just to give them another thing, such as Burnham being retro-fitted to be Spock's sister despite no history of Spock having a sister

[@DJRonnieG]

@@usernameluis305 this is true.. fair point.

[@wandamdlalose9644]

Racist!!!

[@redram5150]

Regarding point two, being the “center of the universe”, on no less than seven occasions, characters and even the entire ship get tangled in a situation that Geoedi, Worf, Picard, or any other highly educated and trained crew member can’t solve, yet Wesley Crusher swoops in to save the day. Hell, The Traveller divines him as one just like him, with the power of a god, based on nothing more than a handful of minutes together He’s a Mary Sue

[@Predator42ID]

Huh, I wondered why I despised Wesley, and couldn't watch TNG because of him. Thank you, that explains a lot more then saying he was awkward and cringe inducing.

[@usernameluis305]

But is he the main character? That'd be like calling Q a mary sue just because he could do anything.

[@ybyby3rdday]

I can't get over the fact that they gave her a masculine name instead of, oh I dunno, Michelle or Michaela

[@algodwin727]

That drawing is terrifying

[@danielniemeyer1987]

even her flaw is the textbook Mary sue flaw. she cares so much that she believes she alone has to handle every problem by herself. most Mary sues also have connection to already known cannon characters as well. Look at deep space nine. sisco was basically the chosen by gods and the story fallows him less then std dose Bahram.

[@oduntola8208]

Michael Burnham, unlike all the other ST leads comes to us as a flawed human being with a damaged history. She was orphaned by violence and raised in a society where she had to suppress her human emotions. She is bright and talented but because of her Vulcan upbringing, has inherited a condescension for humans in general, human emotion in particular. Her flaw is that conceit and the chip she has on her shoulder regarding her humanity. Also unlike her ST predecessors (perhaps with the exception of Sisko and Janeway) Burnham shows growth. We see her learn from her experiences. She accepts her humanity and learns how to be an emotional human, relating to those around her. Her characterization reminds me of Daniel Craig's James Bond in 'Casino Royale' Janeway's growth occurred partly out of the circumstances she was faced with; Sisko never accepted his deity status until the very end of the series, so yes he grew ...but only ...eventually. In Burnham we see a more realistic HUMAN hero, much more an EVERYMAN of today's society, than the actual SUPERMEN of Kirk, Picard and Archer. When did we see THEM make big mistakes? Is she Mary Sue? Yes but MUCH less so!

[@omnientertainment5852]

Excellent point. Even Spock pointed this out.

[@mrlarvux]

Wesley Crusher was written as someone who would represent Gene Roddenberry in the very best light possible. Every time he does something (up until The First Duty) he's shown to be right about it, and downplays the abilities and intelligence of those more experienced and educated than him.

[@mrlarvux]

@Acererak Isn’t him being smarter than the entire crew aboard the Enterprise and never being wrong about anything not enough? He’s not shown to be some super weakling, but yeah, he’s not Arnold. Doesn’t mean he’s not a Mary Sue.

[@MGLN-hl8gc]

Great video, I agree with you, but also I'd like to add something. I think the problem with Michael Burnham is not only that she's a Mary Sue, but also the fact that the writers miserably failed to create this character as the main character for one simple reason: they don't get us to empathize with her, we don't care what happens to her, we don't connect with her. Characters like Pike, Saru, Stamets or even the Tilly of the first season do manage to connect with the public, and are therefore much more loved.

[@chikeorjih7303]

It's worth pointing out that James T. Kirk, especially the J.J. version, fits your Mary Sue definition perfectly. Props for calling out the sexism associated with the name. A lot of folks complaining about Mary Sue's in Star Trek and Star Wars often overlook the fact that some of the most loved male characters are in fact Mary Sue's.

[@beefymario88]

I think the issue is with how much the entire plot of 30 episodes of television constantly revolves around her as if she is a walking plot device. I don't think people have a problem with a Mary Sue when they are well written but Michael isn't well written at all. It's too on the nose, she is often the cause, effect and solution to the plot, not just the solution and her character is too predictable. It doesn't help that her character is also extremely unlikeable, devoid of humour, insubordinate and volatile. I also think that making her Spock's sister albeit interesting, put to much weight on the characters shoulders and also was another obviously on the nose and unnecessary plot convenience. I don't think it's sexism when it comes to peoples dislike of Michael Burnham. I think that people find it hard to explain why a protagonist is written poorly, they just know that they don't like her and since they liked Kirk maybe they're sexist, it's a logical assumption. I don't think that though, I think most people can't articulate exactly why they don't like her as a protagonist and because they can't differentiate then articulate what the difference between Kirk and Burnham is it comes across as sexism. TBH it also helps that Kirk is extremely likeable and charming!

[@troffle]

> that James T. Kirk, especially the J.J. version ... *only* the J.J. version...

[@troffle]

@@beefymario88 > don't think people have a problem with a Mary Sue when they are well written ... if they were well written, they wouldn't *be* Mary Sues.

[@dirdib69]

@@troffle Ah yes, where "about to be expelled" turns into "you're the Captain now, because somehow no one else can be" is a thing. It was complete lazy horseshit and ruined any chance I had to enjoy the movie.

[@Tezunegari]

OBJECTION #1! Command being Male only is solely based on the ravings of a mentally unstable character. Especially when you realise that Uhura was Command Division in Corbomite Manouvre and Mudd's Women. OBJECTION #2! I'd argue that Michael Burnham didn't start the War with the klingons, that was T'Kuvma. Her fall from grace was her attempt at mutiny (and possibly switching her phaser from Stun to Kill after telling everyone they need T'Kuvma alive or he'll become a martyr, that scene made no sense) Also, T'Kuvma could have been saved if Saru had waited with the transporter for her signal... which also could have ended with the recovered body of Georgiou.

[@Pooptydoopoop]

One could argue in TOS that kirk was a Mary sue

[@singletona082]

Quite easily so in fact. Kirk however while ultimately being center stage existed in a universe that didn't require him to exist in.

[@Pooptydoopoop]

Andrew Singleton based on ketwolski’s recipe I would give him a 2 maybe a little more

[@Pooptydoopoop]

Inde tiger I gave a full point on the first one and only half of one on the last two.

[@troffle]

Kirk had his skills because he spent what, seven years in the Academy and served his time getting experience aboard the Farragut and who knows where else. Burnham excelled through the Vulcan Academy in spite of not having a Vulcan neurology or stamina. And there are many other problems with Burnham being in the position she's in, it ought to be flatly impossible, if the Discovery universe were a consistent universe. There's a loooooong list of context problems inherent in Burnham's existence. There is no similar argument claiming that TOS Kirk was a Mary Sue. Abrams Kirk, yeah. Not TOS Kirk.

[@filmandpage1138]

I don't know what percentage of Michael Burnham or Wesley Crusher are Mary or Gary Sues, but they 100 percent both annoying characters. They did a better job With Wesley in later season like the episode the game.

[@ohgoditshimrun1346]

In scene one of episode one, she is presented as deserving the label of being a super-genius because she used to live on Vulcan. And not held accountable to actually attend any military academy before being fully qualified to serve as the first officer on a starship. That right there makes her a Mary Sue. Then we have the fact that she makes a laughably incompetent prediction about the sandstorm's ETA, and can't imagine why her saying it didn't make it true. And she declares that a geometric shape with multiple sharp corners in it logically must be a circle. And she decides to commit mutiny, but fails to remember to lock the Captain up during the mutiny, so that the rest of the crew will have any reason to obey a mutineer instead of the Captain. And then she gets thrown in the brig, but she's just so special that she doesn't need a reason why she's so special that they don't revoke her security clearance while she's locked up in the brig... She is a laughably incompetent idiot, who can not muster the brainpower necessary to successfully commit a mugging. And we get so many layers of discrimination-bait piled on (black woman with a gender-blender name) because accusing people of being evil bigots who must not be listened to was a successful marketing strategy for the recent Ghostbusters film. Not only is she a Mary Sue, but she's a Mary Sue written by people who think that a Mary Sue is too complicated a character for the level of writing they should be expected to put in for their paychecks.

[@SC-mq1eh]

Im fairly certain the VSA is roughly the equivalent of SFA or at least transferable credits - and she didnt start out as FO it took her 5yrs to earn that rank - and her 1st name being male is an idiosyncrasy of bryan fuller, as almost all his stories include a female with a male name

[@niicommey4117]

You say she is a mary sue and list a bunch of mistakes she made. After the war starts basically everyone hates or avoids her except Lorca.

[@davepost7675]

I thought she didn't attend the Vulcan Science academy as her father was given the choice that only she or Spock could go and he decided the space should be for Spock, who then decided to go to Starfleet instead.

[@edvaldjohnsen7239]

She attended the Vulcan Science Academy, but she couldn't join the Vulcan Expeditionary Group after graduating.

[@HisNeverland]

I think by your standards, Kirk and Spock from the AOS movies are also mary sues.

[@MarceloMercadoDespot]

Great video, and it has aged well with Discovery season 3.

[@jamespatrik3701]

I would have thought Seven of Nine would have been a good choice too. Always thought of her as a Mary Sue.

[@90lancaster]

She is very powerful physically and intellectually - but she's also stubborn, wilful, insubordinate, condescending, and only partially loved (Belanna has to constantly resist the urge to punch her in the face) - she is the Captain's pet project though so I suppose that give her special status. They did also over time make her special to the Borg for no obvious reason, interestingly beta-canon content like novels of Star Trek online treat Seven really badly - having her be treated really poorly by Starfleet instead of seeing her as a resource like Data or Spock were. So that may discount her Sue Status a bit, that lingering lack of trust.

[@SC-mq1eh]

@@90lancaster and Burnham is stubborn, wilful, insubordinate, condescending, and she is the Captain's pet

[@Dave102693]

@@90lancaster I think Janeway counts more than 7of9.

[@Dave102693]

@@90lancaster because she is a Borg. It makes sense that they hate her.

[@90lancaster]

@@SC-mq1eh Perhaps.. or maybe the Captain is her Pet - you know like with Cats

[@Shapes_Quality_Control]

Massive problem is that the “flat character arc” is supposed to be about the world changing around a character with an unshakable resolve or trait. This is why in your earlier post I refer to characters like Superman, Godzilla, and Michael Myers.

[@Ketwolski]

Godzilla is a bad comparison in my mind because its not a 'person' or really a 'character' as much as a mosnter with some personality. Superman to me doesnt have enough of the Sue ingrediants. However, I agree that Michael Myers is a great example of a male Sue character.

[@Shapes_Quality_Control]

Ketwolski I think you are picking and choosing how you apply your own definitions. Superman absolutely falls into this category and to call Godzilla just a “monster with some personality” and not a character I feel is entirely disingenuous. This entire conversation of “is X a Mary Sue” is being had by people who have no consistent standards and I’m afraid you’ve fallen into that territory.

[@Ketwolski]

I'm not suggesting Superman doesnt have some of the ingreidents...I just dont think he fully gets the Sue status in my mind, per my own recipe card. I think he would come in at 1.75...possibly a 2. Which would put him at the same level of Michael which is 'Yes, kinda'. And I dont want to argue about Godzilla lol.

[@Shapes_Quality_Control]

Ketwolski Exactly joe by your criteria is he not getting full marks? I’m seeing a serious lack on consistency.

[@Lagacy2]

Superman isn't a Mary Sue because he has not only personality flaws but ideological flaws as well. This was already explored in the countless Superman "What-If" stories within the DC Multiverse. Beyond that, I could list a *LITANY* of characters who have and could easily defeat Superman. I'll gladly concede on the point that he is overpowered but he's *NOT* infallible. Godzilla doesn't fit the description of a Mary Sue because at the very beginning of his debut he was I'd say universally feared, people didn't love him at all until he came to quell the increasing monster threat. So I'd say his adoration was pretty earned in that regard. As far as his abilities go they are explained and quite limited, his limitations are shown in the battle against Mecha Godzilla where he clearly gets his ass kicked for 75% of the fight and only wins from intervention from the humans, so no, Godzilla definitely not a Gary Stu/Mary Sue depending on which gender you attribute to Big G. Michael Myers, I mean come on man. YES but, NO. it depends on which timeline you are referring to within the Holloween franchise because there are THREE timelines. The original timeline going from 1 to 6: Curse of Michael Myers which DOES, in fact, explain not only the origin of his powers but it elaborates on his purpose, My personal favorite, The H20 Timeline which is meant to replace movies 4, and 5, and the Remake Timeline which replaces every movie but Holloween 1978. In two of three of those timelines Michael Myers origin isn't really explained, true but he's NOT perfect character at all because he's been described by several characters as misguided if not completely evil, and I'd say he's in fact universally HATED if anything. The entire point of the character is that he has no emotion to go on so you can't really chastise the plot for something they've already explained countless times he doesn't possess.

[@90lancaster]

She was test pilot for the expeditionary pods as well. She's also been on every away mission / Landing Party bar one (to get the time crystals). I don't think I have ever heard her say "This is not my area of expertise ; ask Cmdr Stamets" She was seemingly aware of the time loop when only Stamets was because of his Tardigrade DNA Top of her class in a Vulcan school - is kinda unlikely.. She'd have to be the Einstein of her generation to have even a hope of doing that. Oh I could go on like this for hours so I think i'll stop She can't dance though LOL

[@Ketwolski]

You know...I was going to include something about her dancing as well lol :P

[@NinjaSaitama]

Japanese animes is filled with mary sues LOL

[@danielniemeyer1987]

yes but they genially make them quirky enough were it is not that bad.

[@rnlamsee1]

I endorse this. She is a Mary Sue but I enjoyed the character and the show. Can't wait for Season 3. Haters begone :)

[@katakisLives]

The way I see it the universe is a big place someone out there is bound to plausibly be able to do all the things Michael can do and still be a real person. of course we could have a star trek series called red shirt where the character dies at the end of every episode

[@markuscriticus8278]

I think you've been fair and considerate in your video. IMO... The Spock's secret sister thing is stupid and in grand scheme of things pretty pointless, but at the point where the first thing a character does is fucking up so hard she causes the central conflict of the season and is near universally hated in-universe for it, is argued to be a Mary Sue... That just seems to me like nitpicky focus on technicalities to hate something on principle, while ignoring why the trope is disliked in the first place.

[@usernameluis305]

Your word-salad lost your point

[@markuscriticus8278]

@@usernameluis305 Nah.

[@LtCdrRoyFokker]

I appreciate the nuanced views taken in this video. While I personally think she is a slam dunk full 3/3 for the Mary Sue determination, it's nice to see a critical look (as in the dictionary definition and not the commonly used synonym for negative) from the channel regarding DISCO. It's the first thumbs up I've given to you since season one.

[@JessieGender1]

Great video! also saw you used my thumbnail from my own Mary Sue video in this one. no worries, not bothered by that as I’ve done the same, just happy you prob watched my video :)

[@Ketwolski]

I was wondering when you were going to pop in! I figured you would have seen the graphic :) And to answer your question, yes I did watch your video and several others to gain some additional perspectives and understanding. Overly Sarcastic Productions also had a great video that deal with the sexism aspect as well. Heres a link incase you havent seen it: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fmOQeHyPbreHp7c

[@Enchantmentofeternity]

Interesting video, but I can't say I agree with your assessment. In my opinion you left out a key ingredient of what makes a Mary Sue, and that is having a character who is perfect (ie without flaws) as Mary Sue is portrayed in a Trekkie's Tale. And in that regard I feel Wesley fits the bill way more than Burnham. Wesley has saved the universe on several occasions and with the one exception of the episode "The First Duty" (the only episode Wesley felt like a real character to me) he can do no wrong and is always right. Where as with Michael she was completely wrong in trying to mutiny, and it started the Klingon war, further in Season 2 they explored many more flaws owning to her feelings of guilt over her parent's death. In the episode "Project Daedalus" Michael Burnham refused to kill Ariam even though she knew it was the only way to save her crew due to her character flaw of wanting to save everyone. And so if it wasn't for Commander Nahn being there Michael would have gotten her entire crew KILLED, which is a far cry from Wesley who saves his entire crew on a regular basis (ie The Game, Naked Now and many more). While I do agree with you that Burnham is focused on too much and too often is the center of attention (something I think the show does need to work on in future seasons) while Wesely is just a supporting character, I still feel the trait of being flawless and doing no wrong is more important when determining who is a Mary Sue, so I personally would say Wesley is more of a Mary Sue than Burnham but that's just me. I know you're someone who likes Discovery and is being fair, and I appreciate that and these videos that I enjoy watching so please keep it up

[@troffle]

Burnham was a serving bridge officer in spite of never having been to Starfleet Academy. Burnham was serving as the "xenoanthropology officer" (on the Bridge) and grew up in the Vulcan Academies, but had to go ask Sarek how the Vulcans dealt with the Klingons. Burnham doesn't have the physiological or neurological advantages of the Vulcans, but excelled in their academies. Burnham doesn't have the stamina, physiology or training of a Klingon, yet stood up to one in hand-to-hand combat. SPOCK needed the validation of her emotional approval. Burnham is the only person Emperor Georgiou can bring herself to love. Leland gets through telling everybody how he looks tough as nails to everybody because it's his job, but then gets teary and apologetic to Burnham *not one minute later* when saying he had to send her parents to do a job. Wesley Crusher had one innate skill that was recognised only after a supernatural alien who saved the entire ship advised the Captain privately that Crusher was such a talented being; and otherwise had annoyed the hell out of the Captain in spite of the fact that he was hot for the boy's mother. ... Burnham is a Mary Sue.

[@oliviamoore3426]

I really like this video: I think you’re pretty much spot on.

[@driftbandit4740]

Even though Michael Burnham is a Mary Sue, it's one l can definitely live with. The main difference between Burnham and Rey is that Burnham received her training at the Vulcan Academy and act like a Vulcan. Rey didn't receive any trainning and was able to defeat Kylo Ren. As far as bending people to her will, Burnham rearned the respect of the Discovery Crew to the point that she can be trusted again. Rey used the force to not only read Kylo's mind but to control the guard to release her. Michael Burnham maybe a Mary Sue but Rey is a PERFECT SUE. I have a feeling that we will find out the origin of Rey via the next Star Wars movie and l have a very bad feeling it's not going to end well for her.

[@thesammyjenkinsexperience4996]

Burnham does not act like a Vulcan. She's by far the most emotional person in the Discovery crew.

[@estherbarba1409]

Yes, now that you mention it, Rey is much more of a Mary Sue than Michael Burnham. And again, I do like SW, even the latest films (I've seen all of them except "Solo", I think).

[@driftbandit4740]

@@estherbarba1409, "Solo" in my opinion is so much better than TLJ.

[@driftbandit4740]

@@thesammyjenkinsexperience4996, So, l guess you forgotten about that Flashback scene when both Sarek and Burnham first arrived on the USS Shenzou, she definitely acted like a vulcan.

[@thesammyjenkinsexperience4996]

@@driftbandit4740 So I guess you forgot about all of seasons 1 and 2 where she acted like an overly emotional human.

[@CharlyDeamen]

I can only start clapping slowly, and then build up speed. Bravo. That's exactly what Burnham is. Take it from someone who has been a Fanfic author for 20 years, I've seen it all. And before some starts, I can put my money where my mouth is, and I am a proponent of fanfic writing as a craft / entertainment medium. And just like every form of entertainment, it has highs and lows.

[@Predator42ID]

Indeed, While I've only written two fanfics, one is still incomplete. Those who reviewed my character noted just how good his development was. In short, a good character is not one where the universe revolves around them and they aren't infallible. I've tried to read stories that had perfect characters they were just so boring and uninteresting. plus they heavily lacked in imagination. Also you know something is wrong when many fanfics are better then the crap they are showing on TV now days. That is just sad. Thank you.

[@Knightfall182]

Biggest problem with Michael Burnham is that she isn't likeable, and that's bad for the lead of the series. She is Smug and Self-important..and sadly the narrative of the series tries to justify that importance. Still can't believe they ended up making her the Red Angel and proving all the haters right. EEk. She ends up coming off like a poor fanfiction character forced into a universe where she doesn't belong.

[@oduntola8208]

A pity you decided to dislike a character because she displays human flaws. It is ironic because others here are arguing that she has too perfect, a Mary Sue, but I agree with you, she was indeed flawed. Burnham is the main protagonist in THIS version of ST, that she was indeed the Red Angel was almost a given. That's what heroes do, heroic things! Take a look again at Kirk of TOS if you want to see a real fan fiction, Mary Sue character with no flaws and the incredible superhuman power to subdue alien females...by merely KISSING them! Talk about male fantasy fulfillment!

[@Knightfall182]

@@oduntola8208 Nope. Kirk was definitely very flawed. See The Enemy Within and a bunch of other episodes where Kirk was constantly questioning himself. He was also very dependent on Spock for his science, and McCoy for his moral guidance...Id/Ego/Superego. Kirk is only perfect when he has the other two men supporting him. They are parts of a whole. Kirk/Shatner was also charming and charismatic though, almost like RDJ with Iron Man.. so it worked really well. Can't say the same for Michael Boredom/Sonequa.

[@oduntola8208]

@@Knightfall182 So constantly questioning himself is a flaw in Kirk demonstrating his humanity and perhaps NonSueness, but being self assured, smug and confident doesn't make Burnham any more human only makes her 'unlikable'. You don't see that by working out her issues with Saru, Tilly, Lorca, Georgio and Pike, Burnham is bringing together many members of her crew to work on a single purpose, while in the middle of several personal issues, but you certainly view Kirk's over-dependence (your term really ) on Spock and McCoy as positive traits. Some of her critiques say Burnham does everything, she does too much, you say she is boring , doesn't do enough. I don't consider being at the helm of one of the most exciting seasons in ST history boring. I guess being 'having great charisma' is another way to describe Kirk's behavior with those alien females right? Fact is you see what you want to see in the character. Tell me Knightfall182, did you want there to be a Pike and Spock spin off too? Why do you think that is? Remember Pike and Spock were created by the same people who created Burnham. Why do people hate her but like them so much?

[@SC-mq1eh]

@@Knightfall182 "Smug and Self-important." - kinda how most of the best trek characters are described when 1st shown on screen

[@Knightfall182]

@@oduntola8208 LOL I don't want a Pike and Spock spinoff. Not with these shitty CW writers. I liked Mount's charisma and screen presence, but the writing he was given was pure schlock. The reason everyone wants a Pike spinoff is that he's way more likeable, talented and charismatic as a series lead than MarySue Burnham/Sonequa. Burnham has had a very divisive reaction (and that's not good). Even this video addresses it and why.

[@iona2225]

So in short; yes, but if that should’nt stop you if you already like the show and character! I don’t like it, but hey, if others do who am I to deny what they enjoy! :D

[@maryhigginsy]

1. As a huge Iron Man fan, I love Michael being written in this “I GOT THIS” kind of way. To me, She and Tony Stark have similar arcs. 2. I think you should have compared Michael to Picard... I kept thinking about him being a moderator for the Klingons, and being trusted with memories, etc. Picard’s a suuuuper Sue, and I thinks that’s why we love him.

[@90lancaster]

Picard has been very badly wrong a few times - (more so Janeway) Sisko also has personal flaw - so does Michael - but everyone just ignores them it seems.

[@ShimaTrek]

I was thinking about Tony Stark while watching the video...

[@usernameluis305]

Did any other character demand that the entire star trek universe be re-written just for their inclusion? Like Spock suddenly having a sister that is perfect at everything even when spock himself wasn't

[@zjpeterson]

Now do Kirk.

[@HisNeverland]

Agreed!!

[@aegisgfx]

thats what she said

[@michaelpapp5518]

Is Kirk a Sue though? It would be a fun topic to tackle. Judging the male characters by Mary Sue standards.

[@STho205]

Michael Papp. Mary Sue is not gender specific (except for pasty boy gamers and neck beards that can't get a date) but a character in fanfic that becomes the boy/girl that is suddenly the center of the universe, juxtaposed between existing heroic characters. Typically a mousy or minor person that becomes grandiose. Most fanfic of the 70s-90s was girl written. It is listed as a reason for a producer to reject such drivel. Kirk is not a Sue, as he was an Oddesyan hero character from the start just like Buck Rogers or ...Luke Skywalker as the fated hero's journey of growth (the Jasonic hero). Same is true for say: Janeway, a hero from the start and the original anchor of a new story. However if a reboot of Voyager had Janeway's brother, a computer scientist that is also a former classmate of Jakote, and attended the Vulcan Science Academy with TuVok, who always looked up to him BTW, and having studied at the feet of Spock and Picard, transport himself from Earth to rescue Voyager with all the secrets of the galaxy... Then he would be a Mary Sue.

[@ashlevrier]

Jar jar trek is. Original kirk no. Original kirk lost his wife and unborn child in one episode. Some times its spoke or a different character that saves the day.

[@interstellarsurfer]

Sonequa Martin-Green deserves an Emmy for acting_the_crap out of the character she was given - and the writers of said character should be slathered in honey, and crucified over a colony of fireants. 🤘

[@usernameluis305]

Isnt this another form of mary sue, to act like she had nothing to do with it and that she played it well?

[@SaiTurtlesninjaNX]

First off great video. I remember when Trekspertise did their video on this topic and thought they needed an update. Yes, I one of those people who hated Michael Burnham character for many many reasons. But was hoping that she wouldn't be a Mary Sue by the end of season 2. Now do I think she still going to be a Mary Sue in season 3 onwards?... No

[@90lancaster]

They will break Canon again by making her the youngest Captain in Starfleet again as she was born in 2226 that means she's now around 32 years old (give or take 9 months time travel) so if Saru gives in an lets her be Captain then she will beat potentially both Captain Tryla Scott and Kirk both - (Jim Kirk for sure) Tryla - I couldn't say for sure as no date is given for how old she was to make Captain.

[@joebyrum9241]

This video is 100% approved by midnights Edge, Doomcock, anti Trekker and Oroville yards (formerly known as Trek yards)

[@matthewnevin9156]

Alice in wonderland got turned into a total Mary sue.

[@RyrienaHoustonBorn]

ME 0020 Alice in Wonderland was a storyline that was meant to have a mary sue. I mean a kids dream world come to life etc the other characters in the story were better than the main character.

[@matthewnevin9156]

@@RyrienaHoustonBorn No way. Alice was always an outsider looking in. She stumbled into wonderland by accident. It was the Hollywood people that decided to make her the be all and end all of wonderland for no good reason.

[@Capronice]

Michael Burnham should be the name for a Mary Sue. Discovery is by far one of the worse written shows I have ever seen. Talk about center of attention. We don't even know the other characters and the characters don't seem to know each other. I was really interested in how the gay couple would be portrayed on a futuristic show. It turned out that we barely saw the two together or go on a mission together, or meet other people of other civilizations. Instead they killed him off. I don't think the writers had any idea how to write for a gay couple or any couple. No relationship on this show appeared realistic or interesting. The audience does not care when a crew member dies because we don't know them and the characters , none of that had chemistry. Now on Orville, I love all the characters. They all have full personalities and you actually feel like these people live together on a star ship. There are two male characters who are married and the show actually shows them struggling through their relationship. If we were to lose any character the audience would be upset and you actually feel that the characters will be effected by the loss. We don't need some funeral or some sad scene to feel sad. We enjoyed that person's character and they are actually going to be missed if they were to die or leave the ship to go back to their home world. Bring up Orville is not an us against them thing. It is not choose one or the other. I love Star Trek but Discovery has so many faults. Alex Kurtzman is riding on the Star Trek name alone. His writers just have no talent. No connection to their audience. I am sure their is huge drama behind the scenes. You can see it in the product they are handing out. At first I was so upset about them ruining the history of Star Trek but at this point I just don't care. The show sucked

[@troffle]

Needs paragraph breaks desperately, but 11 out of 10 for content. Full agreement and thank you.

[@Capronice]

@@troffle Yes I tend to just write real quick what I am thinking. I talk like that as well. Maybe it is the A.D.D

[@troffle]

@@Capronice So noted. Fair enough. Mind you, it seems most people on KZbin or Facebook don't know about shift-enter and keep writing novel-length paragraphs. Thumbs up to you.

[@Capronice]

@@troffle Thanks. Seriously I did not know there were any rules to comments on KZbin. Someone replied saying I should keep it to one sentence. As if I should just make a quick joke and be done. I however am sticking to what I enjoy doing. Hell I don't read everyone's comment and don't expect everyone to read mine. Writing in paragraphs takes the fun out of it. I guess I look at it like texting. You just do it haphazardly and get thoughts across as fast as you can. Did you see there? I did use paragraphs.

[@troffle]

@@Capronice You're welcome. Use of paragraphs noted and appreciated. ... but I don't think there are specific "rules". Well, not for something at this level, anyway. Not a problem. Thanks and thanks again.

[@davidheagneyjr6181]

Interesting assessment. By the terms you define, your conclusion makes sense. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it makes me wonder if a "Mary Sue" by the more modern definition is a bad thing by default.

[@ryanhau1073]

Tho, the question is how likely these characters are directly based on who created them in some sort of attempt of wish fulfilment. If we include this as an ingredient, if we apply to Michael it pretty unclear unless we know more about who wrote her character to begin with, with Wesley there is a clue if we look at Roddenberry's middle name.

[@johnnydiamond79]

Great video,Ketwolski! I think the whole mary sue thing is ridiculous! Burnham is a hero. She's had no parents except for Spock's. So she had to mature differently. Growing up on Vulcan is no piece of cake or so I've heard. So she had to learn to take care of herself at a young age. Then she went to Starfleet Academy,where she had to learn even more about being on her own and taking care of herself. Why does gender matter so much to people? Women can do what men can do. That's called equality. In the end,a hero is a hero,regardless of gender or sexuality. By your definition,Ketwolski,Data and Captain Kirk would be gary sue's. I say this because Captain Kirk solved everything with no questions asked and we never see him go through the Academy but we just accept that. He was the central figure in a majority of the TOS episodes so he would be a gary sue,right? It doesn't matter to me because I still love Captain Kirk and he's still my favorite character,regardless. And Data? He would definitely be a gary sue,right? He's always solving all of the Enterprise's problems. He's the main focus in a ton of TNG episodes. Almost half the series or more was about him. Or does the gary sue thing not apply to him because he's an "android"? But he's a male android and he does have sex and he did create a daughter so I think he should be included in the gary sue catagory,what do you think,Ketwolski? Again,great video! LLAP,Ketwolski 🖖!

[@90lancaster]

Burnham never went to Starfleet Academy - she went straight from Vulcan School to an internship with Captain Georgio - 7 years later she was a 1st officer.

[@johnnydiamond79]

@@90lancaster Well,thanks for the info. But the point I was making is that she's a hero,regardless of gender or sexuality. She's saved the universe from destruction. That is the classic definition of a hero. And she has to be a commissioned officer in Starfleet because Starfleet arrested her for mutiny after she started the war with the Klingons,right? It doesn't matter that what she does defies logic because she is a character in a story. Nothing more. She doesn't exist in real life. For the sake of her story,she can do everything because that is how she is written. Data is the exact same way and that's my point. Men are quick to classify a woman as a mary sue but when men do the exact same thing,it's no big deal. There should just be equality. That's one of the core principles of Star Trek-men and women being equal. It seems to me like people have forgotten that's the point that I'm trying to make.

[@ebonspace]

I can accept that she's a Mary Sue but that doesn't justify all the hate. And I do feel it's a combination of 2 things: a) misogynoir + b) Mary Sue aspects. The slider may move closer to one end than the other.

[@PeterKJRichterIMHO]

It's nice to see an article on something and not be derisive or derivative. Learn something new everyday, and funny that Mary Sue origin comes from Trek, similar to "bottle eps", which was also coined from TOS Trek. But yeah, that OG Mary Sue DOES sound a lot like Mikey B lol I'm waiting for the Verse to balance out to make more balanced characters with everyone involved, not some uber character that saves the day every time...

[@grim4891]

Since when did Mary Sue become a label to be dislike? it is some kind of label for the character,a label that we use to sort character, but I see no reason to dislike that character just because he/she has it. Almost all protagonists we know have some kind of Mary Sue or chosen one issue, do we dislike them all?

[@SC-mq1eh]

mary sue is a kneejerk label thrown out by closet or open misogynists that have an issue with the emergence of strong female protagonists

[@Ketwolski]

That might be true for some people, but thats not me nor the message of this video. As I stated in the video, theres nothing wrong with liking or enjoying a Sue character of all types.

[@SC-mq1eh]

@@Ketwolski lol - yeah sorry ket, not trying to throw you under the bus - but is it coincidence that it became fashionable to use the term once hollywood started propping up women in once male dominated roles? no one was calling out gary stus, until the status quo was disrupted - would you have done a "is rambo a gary stu" vid? probably not, because it was the accepted norm - thats why i said its an unnecessary label for justifying dislike of a character

[@Ketwolski]

@@SC-mq1eh I dont disagree that the term has been weaponized for other agendas who are looking to put down the rise of female led films/television...I would be a liar to deny that. And Im not saying there arent other Sues in Trek, that I feel like now after this video need to be reviewed....but Im not trying to spread an agenda or put down Burnham or anyone that loves her character. 2 of my favorite scenes in S2 where from her, and I like her character growth.

[@Ketwolski]

@@SC-mq1eh Sorry Im kind of reacting strong to your comment because others are posting similar insults by calling me a sexist and a racist for saying I think she is a Sue. I think they are used to dealing with those types of people when talking about Mary Sues so they either skipped the end of my vid or just had a cognitive blind spot on what point I was trying to make.

[@gingernutninja6187]

If you think about it a character like John Wick has a lot of sue qualities. He basically has all of the characteristics of a sue, however the primary focus of the movies isn't John Wick himself it's the badass action. If you look at Star Trek discovery however the prime focus is on the character of Michel Burnham.

[@omnientertainment5852]

JOHN WICK is the perfect Gary/Mary Stu. Like you said, not all things have to involve him.

[@jroar123]

What people seem to have forgotten is that Micheal Bernham had her abilities downloaded in the construct...... hold on, that’s a different movie. Yes, she’s a Marry Sue.

[@papishow]

Very good analysis. Subscribed.

[@edvaldjohnsen7239]

I'm almost inclined to give Michael a -1 in the last category: She is lacking capabilities she has clearly trained for. One of the first things we get to know about her is that she's a xenoanthropologist, and yet, as an anthropology student I regularly feel like throwing a pillow in her direction. Discovery shows us that she's intelligent: She has a strong understanding of biology and physics, and she is skilled with technology. But I can easily name several Star Trek characters who have not been anthropologists and still have a far stronger understanding of culture and different forms of society than she does. Even within Discovery, other characters take the lead when anthropological knowledge would be useful: Saru acts as First Contact Specialist when the Discovery crew encounters a wholly different life form in "Si vis pacem para bellum", and Pike is apparently better than her at talking to and understanding the villagers in "New Eden", because his father taught comparative religion. Her contribution is the absolutely horrible line "Anthropologically speaking, it appears that they cobbled together a religion based on the primary faiths of Earth". Ouch. In all fairness, I don't think Michael is a lost cause. I just think the writers really need to learn more about anthropology if they want it to be what their main charachter is trained in.

[@omnientertainment5852]

Great analysis. Just don't be surprised when the horde of people get mad and call you sexist.

[@MarcAlcatraz]

Jimmy Neutron is a Gary Stu, that Hershey kiss hair is too perfect

[@jaysmith6327]

No not Mary Sue she is less interesting than that....character who walks around thinking I’m better than you...I’m better than you you you and you over there...female actresses of the past used there skills and talent to get ahead actresses now believe they deserve everything and deserve everyone loving what they do or else....toxic feminism trumps actually having talent and charisma

[@EinKerl3554]

No, she is just one of the most irritating and badly written characters on television.

[@DJRonnieG]

P.S.- I appreciate your balanced and rational attitude but I stand by my long-winded comments.

[@theundead1600]

Captian marvel movie version fits it almost to the tee. Lol.

[@shineayandrews1869]

Identity Politics at the current time make the issue of being a Sue, bad. Feminists are screaming about little girls """needing""" strong fictional people to look up to, but when you make that fictional person absolutely perfect it's just as bad as anything else. It's unrealistic to not portray someone's shortcomings, someone failing, someone being defeated which is why ANY sort of sue is bad but especially female Sues. I grew up looking up to men mostly, but now that I'm older I look to females a bit more, but I don't find many "role models" or even women who inspire me because they're so fake pretending they're perfect. No one is, and we need to show that more.

[@singletona082]

For me it isn't about her 'flaws' keeping her from being 'too perfect' (Kirk was a womanizing chauvinist who was all too eager for a fight and demanded center stage. Yet while he is sue-ish? He isn't one.) FOr me the question is 'does Michael Bernum derail the world so everything wraps around her. My answer for that criteria? Yes. Yes she does.

[@oduntola8208]

According to the presentation having no flaws was one of the criteria. In your case, you actually use her flaw to argue that she is a MS and you can't see that everything is wrapped around Kirk too, in a worse way. That's the problem everybody's definition of MS is slanted to the character they dislike!

[@singletona082]

@@oduntola8208 Well my problem is less that Bermun is a Sue and more the fact the writing's just plain lacking. Kirk could fall into the whole sue category too but the thing is the writing and characters around him helped make it an experience I enjoyed. I don't enjoy Discovery (nor do I feel it 'ruins' canon. branching timelines being a thing and whatnot.) If you like Bermun fine awesome won't knock you. I don't and just feel like the show would have been better served ditching the trek name and going as an original property... and different writers.... anda lot o other things I could nerd rage over but won't. Point is I don't want you to feel like I don't like YOU because I don't like Bermun or Discovery. Y'know?

[@oduntola8208]

@@singletona082 The whole Sue thing is a red herring. You described an intangible, gut level dislike for the show, which is fine. You didn't blame canon or use the of the other excuses you hear people are using.That is honest, however let me suggest to you that if Pike or Spock and had done ALL the things Burnham had done in the show, you and many, many others, would be talking about how the fighting and battle scenes are breath taking and groundbreaking, because they are. Why do I know this? Because after everything a lot of ST fans were clamoring for a Pike and Spock spin-off. Same writers, same directors, same technology, cinematography...they just wanted their guys to have the glory. How come the writing is perfect when it comes to Pike and Spock and so horrible with Burnham. It is as simple as that. Nobody comes from a James Bond movie and says Bond was too perfect, except those who don't like the particular actor playing Bond.

[@singletona082]

​@@oduntola8208 While I want to just chuck your entire argument out the window because many others have gone the 'oh it's a woman so you're being a sexist pig' I find discovery to be poorly paced, trying to act like its earned its moments, and just never felt like something I could sink into beyond Berman. Discounting and disconnecting arguments on 'would the klingons have this or act like this' or so forth? I'd rather watch the Orville. And 'nobody comes from a bond movie bitching about bond' is pretty well false because I've grown to hate Bond over the years. I look at the older movies and 'why is this jackass the person we're following around?' I look at John Wayne era westerns and just facepalm at how much mighty whitey is going on. At least steven segaul movies are ENTERTAININGLY bad to the point I just sit and laugh at how gods damned terrible they are. So your 'you don't like Michael berman therefor you are sexist' falls flat to me. See also 'I hate batman memes because it is lazy writing full of edgelord bullshit that takes away from potentially interesting and creative storytelling potential.'

[@oduntola8208]

@@singletona082 I said the only Bond fans who bitch about Bond movies are people dissatisfied with a particular Bond, NOT the fact that Bond is superhuman. Dismiss the sexist and racist argument for the Burnham meltdown if you like; do so without explaining anything beyond I don't like this or she doesn't feel that; that will not stop the argument from being valid. Tip: if the reason for your feelings are so hard to pin down, you might just not want to admit it to yourself. Haven't you ever considered why it is soooo hard for you to even consider those possibilities...seriously? Poorly paced? seriously? what does that even mean? too fast or not fast enough? And while considering that did you factor in the fact that this VERY fan meltdown caused the writers to change their plans mid-stream? "So your 'you don't like Michael berman therefor you are sexist' falls flat to me." Why does it ? If you would LOVE Pike or Spock to do exactly what she has done then it is racist or sexist or both to hate her.. You might want to tell yourself you would NOT have been thrilled to see Spock or Pike in Burnham's shoes and you are free to do that too. However the reaction of thousands of fans tell me something else. Same show, same writer,same tech, same pacing!

[@robinvan1983]

The whole series is about her and her family,,,, and even her family is pushed away into anything meaningful. They couldn't think anything else than her mom being the red angel?

[@fredholland1169]

I usually don't speak to these kind of videos but a comment that comes up often referring to Michael Burnham as the person who started the war. She did not. She wanted to take the first shot, but the war was coming because of Klingon racism and xenophobic view of the universe.

[@Howyaduing]

Yes she is a Mary Sue

[@ianmatheson4518]

Kirk is the definition of the word, except it's defined as only applying to women. That's what I call a distinction without a difference.

[@estherbarba1409]

That's why the term "Gary Stu" was coined 😝😝😝

[@90lancaster]

NO the whole point of Kirk, Spock & McCoy (and to some degree the others) is that they make up extremes and only in combination do they function correctly. Kirk is reckless. McCoy is irascible and overly emotional, Spock is to cerebral and may sometimes lack some consideration to emotional issue of the crew - not hugely so - but he has to work on it. Kirk can't do everything he just does what he's supposed to do - which is display leadership skills. Spock provides guidance on logic and science and Mc Coy is a touchstone on emotion and medicine they are in a way 3 aspects of a personality split out into a whole person.

[@singletona082]

@@90lancaster there is a reason they are the holy trinity of Trek. Spock is the logical intellect. McCoy is the emotional moral center, and Kirk bridges the gap. They represented what wassupposed to be the best of what it was to be in a time in real life where everythign was starting to look a bit terrifying. Kirk was The Captain, and often was the guy that solved the problem, but he also had his crew backing him to the point if you put Kirk on a different ship with a crew that didn't work like 'his' crw? He would have faceplanted pretty hard. Also Kirk is a reflection of the writing of the times and would be done quit diffrently today.

[@90lancaster]

@@singletona082 I've heard them referred to this way too : simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego,_and_super-ego

[@jamesharris37]

Is Batman a Mary Sue with his plot armor?

[@singletona082]

Yes. Yes he is.

[@Ketwolski]

Plot armor doesnt automatically make a character a Sue, but I would have to investigate more into Batman's character history before answer the question honestly.

[@Spartanjp308]

WE accept "Mary Sues" if the character is likeable, I found Burnham extreamly unlikable so had a hard time forgiving the rest.

[@SC-mq1eh]

thats why the term mary sue is just a label for protagonist a person doesnt like - almost all heros are mary sues

[@oduntola8208]

@@SC-mq1eh It is even worse than that. The biggest irony of this whole 'fake' Sue discussion is that pound for pound Michael Burnham is more flawed, introspective, prone to change, considerate of others, than ANY of the other ST protagonists that came before her and we learn more about and become more attached to her crew than ANY other ST series, with the possible exception of DS9 (which had a more ensemble cast of both good and bad.) Burnham started off deeply flawed: a brash; impulsive know-it-all with a huge chip on her shoulder caused by her checkered childhood. We see how that affects her decisions and her mistakes large and small. She starts the war, then she rejects Tilly's friendship initially. But we see her change and grow, something we don't EVER see in Kirk, Picard or Archer. Janeway and Sisko are forced by circumstances to change. We see Burnham struggle with her circumstances make the mistake of trusting Lorca too and, like all heroes, we see her RECOVER from her errors and overcome tremendous odds. Isn't that what heroes are supposed to do? I think a lot of thought was put into her characterization and, the arc of the show itself and it irks me tremendously that regardless some people simply want to pan her and the show. I completely agree with the decision to go to another future time. There is no pleasing some critics and a lot of the backlash against this show is that there are too many women and minorities in roles that matter. That's why the big push for a Pike and Spock re-run; that's why a lot of the fans enjoy The Orville more than DSC: worse story, worse tech; almost no coherent sci-fi; ugly thoughtless humor; but at least the right people are in the right positions.

[@SC-mq1eh]

@@oduntola8208 i couldnt agree more with your points!!!! burnham like her or not, has shown more growth than literally any other character in trek - shes carried her lifetime of baggage, without the benefit of a weekly reset button - paid for her mistakes, unlike her brother guilty of the same crime! people complained burmham cried too much this season, uhh yeah because shes finally popping the cork on years of bottled up emotion! shes no more brilliant or resourceful than what her brother was shown to be - her flaw as pointed out by her brother, is that she inserts herself into most given situations - and while i wouldnt mind a Sp/ike trek, i dont want a TOS/TNG 2.0, been there done that! and ill be honest i like most of seths work, and soooo been trying to give that show a chance to grow its beard - but to date the sn'Orville is trash tropes and dripping in CW drama/romance - and probably more, but secretly, anti-male/progressive than DSC ever was - by painting a TNG skin on it, fans ignore the dumb male leads propped up by smarter and stronger females and one of the most progressive gay/trans family situations ever seen on TV - yet gobbled up by those that shout DSC is feminazi/SJW/NPC/insert 'ism'/acronym here

[@Spartanjp308]

@@SC-mq1eh I find with most things in life if you like the person you are willing to overlook the faults, if you are gonna give us a main character that is this unlikable than you absolutely need to minimise the faults. When you don't than the Mary Sue label applies.

[@SC-mq1eh]

@@Spartanjp308 yeah likability isnt a huge criteria in a character for me, being interesting rates higher - in fact most of the characters in trek i like the most, werent very likable to start - picard started off very pompous and arrogant - Tuvok, Tpol, the Dr, 7of9 all started off very standoffish and demeaning to others because of the high level IQs - and most of them became my fave characters - but in fairness, i would consider most of them as mary sues as well

[@Nick-kz6dg]

Sonequa Martin-Green is a fantastic actress, but the writing for Michael lets her down. I hope S3 shifts to an ensemble cast, let Michael play to her strengths but don’t make her the lynchpin that writes the universal destiny of every. single. episode.

[@Knightfall182]

I find her laughably bad, mainly due to her facial expressions and overacting. Shatner was like that too, but he compensated for it by being charismatic and charming. While Burnham is smug and self-important.

[@Shapes_Quality_Control]

5:00 this is a terrible definition as the main character’s story will ALWAYS take precedence over the other characters.

[@Ketwolski]

I would refer back to my Wonder Woman example. Precedence? Perhaps, but the entire universe doesnt bend itself to focus and prop up WW. That, to me, is the biggestest reason Michael's character comes off as a Sue...the show has her focused in to a degree that it hurts the narrative overall.

[@Shapes_Quality_Control]

Ketwolski Your Wonder Woman example is flawed exactly because you ignore the climax and third act in where she was right about Ares and all the enemy soldiers start hugging after he is defeated. The universe will always bend to the will of the flat character. It’s the nature of that type of story and is not the issue. The issue is whether the flat character arc is well written. Burnham being a “Mary Sue” is irrelevant.

[@Ketwolski]

​@@Shapes_Quality_Control So again, to me the big difference here is Wonder Woman was a character that participated in WW1. Her presence in the DCEU during that time was a small part of a larger story. Michael on the other hand was the catalyst of the Klingon War, and its resolver. She was also the top gradute at the Vulcan Science Academy, a test pilot for the drone ships, smart enough to skip Starfleet Academy, exact genetic match to use a time travel device to save the universe, has expertise accross multiple scientific & engineering fields...and on and on and on. Michael's impact on the entire ST universe (in Disco) is light years beyond the impact of Wonder Woman. The point being that both of them are main characters but only one is the full blown center of everything occuring on screen.

[@dionysislarson6352]

Bravo Dude, well done. I've been looking forward to this one. Spot on.

[@jhouston6]

If you are going to use these as your three ingredients to a Mary/Gary sue character then I think you have to acknowledge that every captain on the previous shows falls into the categories you described. They all get 3’s.

[@actionjustin7963]

Jason Houston The point is not accuracy, it’s bigotry.

[@Vipre-]

They literally don't but thanks for playing. Kirk is a 0.5 at best. Sisko is up there granted due to the whole Emissary business. Just as the war was about to be lost he convinced the "Prophets" to Deus Ex Wormhole an entire Dominion fleet iirc. Maybe a 2.0. Janeway might just be the lowest scorer by virtue of being the most incompetent of the lot.

[@aldyhabibie9717]

Trust me, Mary Sue-ish character can be loveable if the story isnt garbage. Just Look at Superman. The Key of writing a perfect character is making the world against them not bending to them. Make their whole life plan a ruin, make their friends turns against them, make their needs strongly overlap with their goal, Make the villains way stronger/Smarter than them, but never let them cry about it so easily. Even a perfect character will be admired by everyone if they are able to accomplish impossible tasks in impossible situation. That way their accomplishment will feel much more fullfiling.

[@omnientertainment5852]

Not really. A "Perfect character" is boring. Superman has flaws and those small flaws make him interesting (I'm not a Superman fan). A flawed character is more interesting than q perfect person because you get to see them grow.

[@aldyhabibie9717]

@@omnientertainment5852 i see what you mean, in today's era people often thinks that Flaw = Interesting characters or Relatable = Realistic or Realistic = high quality. However, People often forget that writings skill also had a factor in the craft. Creating a story with perfect protagonist and made it compelling is a challenging task for the writer and many is failing to done it right. With that in mind, i do not see creating a character with mary sue qualities will instantly ruin the character . It will depend on the writer's skill to keep on challenging the character. Making a Mary sue character and treating them like jesus however is a going to ruin the story.

[@omnientertainment5852]

@@aldyhabibie9717 i understand what you are also saying.

[@Manking1337]

Great Video! Very well researched and informative.

[@KAL5370]

How can that statement even be a question?

[@jimyager1439]

No more than any other character on TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, or ENT :}

[@CinematicHypeTV]

You have obviously no idea what your are talking about.

[@katakisLives]

The difference is that the internet didn't exist then and people weren't going on about Mary Sues, a concept pretty obscure until it was spread about online

[@jimyager1439]

I am well aware of what I'm talking about, I'm 3 months older than Star Trek, so, I've been around. We have 29 episodes of Discovery, that's about the same as, one season, of any other Star Trek series. I can go back to the first full season of any Star Trek series and point out how Data, Spock or Tuvok are "Mary Sue" on each series. The only people that seem to bring this up are "fans" that use STD when they talk about Discovery. If I truly have no idea what I'm talking about, PLEASE, point out why I'm wrong? Be specific, and, prepared for my counterpoint, as I have, several decades to choose from.

[@90lancaster]

Yeah Michael Burnham is just like Harry Kim (sarcasm)

[@togoboldly]

Trek Talking you are probably right about other characters in Star Trek showing attributes of being “Mary sues” but I don’t think any character in Star Trek so perfectly fits that description than Michael Burnham does. Everything and everyone revolves around her - that is a blatant betrayal of feminism because it makes things too easy for the character to get what she wants - she has no idea how to fail and how to be wrong because she’s always right - she is such a bad role model for today’s generation because young girls/women will be watching this show thinking that they can do no wrong and always get their own way. Now, personally I think the writers should be above writing Mary Sue characters in 2019. I think Burnham would of been better served had she faced real consequences for her act of mutiny and had faced hardships beyond anything we’ve ever seen in Star Trek to simply get to put on a Starfleet uniform again but she didn’t and within the space of 29 episodes she’s gone from being Starfleet’s first mutineer, a disgraced officer to the saviour of the known universe because she’s the lead and was unlikable from the very beginning for being too ignorant - she is completely unrealistic as a character anyone with a conscience could ever relate to because she isn’t written as a character within this vast cosmos, she is the cosmos, she’s a dull character because nothing she does is ever wrong. Burnham being the focus of Discovery with everyone kneeling at her every word underserves the actress and the real struggle women, especially black women have had to face just to be treated equally and just goes to show that this is just dumb storytelling that glosses over any sense of believability and replaces it with pew pew pew with an almost Jesus-like central lead. I honestly don’t know where you take Star Trek Discovery from here but if I were charged with that job, I’d start from scratch and have Burnham face something even she has to admit she can’t handle without her crew. Maybe you make her captain and build her up for a massive fall, that she’s got this far without listening to anyone but the decisions she now needs to make insist that she realise she isn’t the centre of the universe, but an equal within it.

[@jment34]

There is also mistake and subsequent guilt it's her constant companion and she is always trying to redeem herself. The real reason the hate from certain fans is something much more superficial and very few will admit. They chose a black woman and people have unconscious biases. The writers are smart though they brought in Pike a excellent captain but who is worshipped as a god by fans.

[@MAFion]

The Mary Sue type is sort of like writing with a cheat code. Because they're always right and everybody else is wrong, it creates easy dramatic tension. They are also wholly unrelatable, and can only rise to mediocrity in terms of the overall story.

[@SC-mq1eh]

why wouldnt you compare burnham to the real mary sues/gary stus of the trek franchise: spock, data, and 7 of 9? - Jason Bourne, Bilbo/frodo Baggins, and james bond could easily be labeled gary stus - protagonists/heroes exist in fiction, they are the central character in an arc, they are our wish fulfillment and they do things that are extra ordinary - the whole mary sue/gary stu is really just a way to negatively label a particular protagonist that you dont like in the end the need for a training montage is a pretty weak argument, thats what exposition is for - i never saw Data or spock studying or downloading all the information they had stored to solve every crisis - i didnt see how spock learned the neck pinch or jason bournes fight training montage

[@Ketwolski]

Well like I said in the vid, I used Wesley as an example since that is the most common response people have for this argument (as seen on many comments here on YT between Trekkies). It's certainly not to imply that there are NO Star Trek Sue characters beyond Michael, I just figured tackling Wesley at the same time would prevent the dozens of people saying "what about wesley". Jason Bourne and James Bond are both very close to being Sue characters in their own right...I would disagree about the baggins family however. The need for a training montage isnt necessary...but the lack of one in the precense of such extreme skill adds onto the narrative that pushes the character into Sue territory. that's just my opinions however.

[@SC-mq1eh]

@@Ketwolski the fact that halflings with no particular innate super strengths could do what they did, definitely puts them in the camp burnhams "extreme skills" can all be inferred or were explained through exposition - super smart = vulcan training, good fighter = vulcan martial arts, strong will = non-vulcan driven to succeed in an non-inclusive vulcan society, etc etc im not even a fan of burnhams, just not a fan of using the brand of mary sue for sake of dislike

[@Ketwolski]

Okay but the baggin's didnt do anything extrodinary other then have the will to resist the one ring, for a time and being really lucky in most cases. Yea but shes not JUST super smart, she was the top of her class and was reportedly one of the smartest people to attend the Vulcan Science academy (her mom said something to that effect in the episode I cant remember the exact line). And I dont totally disagree with the points you're making which is why I didnt give her the full amount regarding the training piece. To me the really big issue is ingredient #2.

[@SC-mq1eh]

@@Ketwolski "she was the top of her class and was reportedly one of the smartest people to attend the Vulcan Science academy" - i dont recall that she was labeled as one of smartest people to attend the VSA, but being top of your class is just something protagonists do - hardly a sin singular to burnham and cmon ket, "baggin's didnt do anything extrodinary"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? and they werent the center of the universe and the writing wasnt bent to ensure focus?? sure there were B stories in the films,(i didnt read the books), but where was the training montage or exposition that showed why they were able to resist the powers of the ring, when no one else could?? most halflings were shown to give in to impulses rather easily

[@Ketwolski]

@@SC-mq1eh "She graduated top of her class, and her test scores were higher than any Vulcan's" is the quote I was looking for. I feel like her 'being the best' above all else is just 1 of several pieces making up my final conclusion regarding Michael. I think well need a book expert to chime in on this discussion because theres probably a lot of additional context were missing out on. But I would argue that Aragorn is more of a Sue character in the films...but thats me :P

[@giacomomezzini9598]

Immagine beign a lower deck employee qnd discover that you and every one else on the ship are being yoinked hundreds of years in the future leaving your family and your loved ones because there is this micheal person (is a guy name but you heard is a girl so you don't know)

[@4july99]

Really fun and informative, thanks!

[@grahamhaspassedaway4580]

I don't really care if she is a Mary Sue, there are different conceptions of what that even means anyway. What I care about is that I hate the character. She was introduced in just about the worst way possible, with the pilot episodes depicting her as an idiot, a disloyal traitor who can't follow orders. As far as I'm concerned her character arc came to a satisfactory conclusion when she was thrown into jail at the end of the pilot, and every subsequent episode I watched I was hoping that she would fail and be returned to jail where she belongs. Which isn't really how you should be feeling about the protagonist of a show.

[@TheCastellan]

Be it one or not, she's not a well written character. And, so far, Discovery is not a well made series. TOS and TNG are well loved. Discovery is always going to "that odd one" of the bunch, and I feel this will not age well. The Orville feels more like Star Trek than Discovery does. CBS, stop making prequels all the time, stop shoehorning cannon, make likable characters.......and quit being hypocrites about copyright, since I seen the game "Tardigrades", CBS....you clearly ripped the game developer guy off. So stop whining and crying about fan films.....they are getting better than your 'pros', CBS.

[@SC-mq1eh]

DS9 was considered the odd one as well, but gets the most regard, after the fact - and while DSC might not be luved by the old guard, its almost universally praised for how well it is made and while a cheap knock rolex looks like a rolex, it isnt - which probably why you think fanfilms/orville are better than the "pros" - because it appears youre happy with a pretty shoddy but familiar appearance, versus quality acting and production

[@TheCastellan]

@@SC-mq1eh I don;t see much high production, SC. Discovery is all FLASH, but no substance. Just because Hollywood makes it, does not mean it is superior. And I don't see much good acting in Hollywood these days.

[@SC-mq1eh]

@@TheCastellan that "FLASH" is the production value - and sorry that you think "substance" is high school play level production and acting!

[@martnava1661]

@@SC-mq1eh "universally praised"? you clearly haven't been paying attention

[@SC-mq1eh]

@@martnava1661 even if you dont like the show - DSCs production values are the highest ever in a trek show and better than most of the movies

[@Romancefantasy]

She's in a class by herself.

[@estherbarba1409]

No more than Kirk or Picard (Sisko not so much) are Gary Stues. But women have to justify ourselves even for being too perfect! 🤦🤦🤦

[@CinematicHypeTV]

Can you give me the reason why Kirk and Picard?

[@estherbarba1409]

@@CinematicHypeTV Don't misunderstand me, I love Picard and love sir Patrick Stewart, he's great, but isn't he full of himself!!! He is always right, always moral, always strong, even under torture! As for Kirk, he is the paragon of the cis-straight-white alpha male. Of course, considering the time (1960-70), he could not be any other way. I like them both, but I don't remember them accused of being too good to be true. Why should Michael be???

[@katakisLives]

it seems that way sometimes! lets just put it this way if we're going on the original definition no official character can be a Mary Sue because it only applies to fan fiction

[@CinematicHypeTV]

@@estherbarba1409 Picard isn't the best at everything. He's a good Diplomat and can outsmart someone he came to understand but always has to ask his staff in order to put pieces together. He almost broke during the torture! A Captain HAS to be an Alpha-Male or Female. Doesn't have something to to with being straight not gay. That's nonsense. Burnham can force herself in Sareks mind and beat him within his mind, she is a better student at the Vulcan science than any Vulcan ever, The best Starfleet as, beats multiple Klingons in hand to hand combat, outsmarts everybody even a computer. She can even withstand 9G for 11 Minutes (even though that's physically not possible) Burnham can solve everything by herself.

[@estherbarba1409]

@@CinematicHypeTV Not at all, she always solves problems with the rest of the team. Phillipa also beats Klingons, and also in VOY I have seen Klingons beaten, I seem to remember. It is only natural that she excels when she has to work harder than anyone in an alien environment... OK, I give you the 9G, but the "suspension of disbelief" has been required often in every ST series, not only DSC.

[@frictionRx5]

can Mary Sue cook, keep a clean house and raise the children?

[@90lancaster]

If she could - she better hold down a full time job as well of the feminists would get upset.

[@pcpcpim]

Of course. If you pay her whatever minimum wage Starfleet pays her, she might consider doing that.

[@davidwright184]

Trying to define a term 'Mary Sue' only invites disaster and limits criticism. There's good and bad characters, stories, plots and action, and the purpose of criticism is talk about them all. There are tons of superficial stars in most of our blockbuster, super hero and action movies. Some are women, some are men, some may have the universe revolve around them, some don't, some have character strengths are drawn with complexity and depth but most are not.

[@viktoriavanleeuwen3459]

Burnham a Mary Sue? Absolutely, intentionally and without shame. Is this a good idea? Nope. Stories should revolve around the top half dozen characters on the show which is the formula of the Next Generation show fans have loved from before. If you want the Discovery to live long and prosper, develop the other characters more and give them the spotlight, as well have them save the day. If Micheal saves everything, including the universe as the Red Angel, then, this show has just become predictable and not worth watching, because for any new mysteries coming up in Season 3, Michael will be the smartest one and only one to save us all. That is a problem unto itself, showrunners should see and writers.

[@Shapes_Quality_Control]

7:18 ugh jeez dude Superman never earned or trained for any of his abilities either yet he’s still a likable fun character. Stuff like this is what frustrates me to no end. Being a “Mary Sue” is not the problem. There are deeper issues with the character in question that reflect a problem with the overall writing and forced tones. Sorry I’m spamming your comments section but this is a bad argument dude.

[@Ketwolski]

I thnk you really missing the point of my 'recipe' card analogy friend :) Superman might have some of the qualities that I listed out, but its the combination of ingredients that add up to a Sue character. I'm not suggesting that there arent other issues with Michael's character, but thats a different topic to me entirely.

[@Shapes_Quality_Control]

Ketwolski I think your missing my point and that the “Mary Sue” does not really exist and lacks consistent definitions and applications of the criticism... something you do in this very video.

[@Ketwolski]

No I think the Sue character definetly exsists...its most commonly found in fan fiction as the authors typically write an amazing character that is all important and all powerful except for the few flaws that are also just designed to increase the awesome factor. I really belive this character does exsist. Do people use the phrase 'mary sue' to commonly? Yes. Its the defitnion really clear? I would say it's clear enough.

[@Shapes_Quality_Control]

Ketwolski Absolutely not because we are ignoring the entire point of a flat character arc and subsuming it into the definition of a “Mary Sue”. There are well written characters and poorly written characters but there are no “Mary sues”. No the definitions are not clear. Your definitions are not even very clear or consistently applied. I like your work but this was one awful piece.

[@SC-mq1eh]

@@Shapes_Quality_Control its the point of the piece in general, nothing wrong with not liking a character - but its when you feel the need to label a character you dont like with an inconsistent definition to begin with