test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Star Trek once again has beaten Star Wars.......

13»

Comments

  • majorcharvenakmajorcharvenak Member Posts: 175 Arc User
    azrael605 wrote: »
    Ah but don't forget major, the "job benefits" of being a slave include beatings, r.a.p.e., having your family sold, and in the Star Wars universe having your explosive implant detonated. Doesn't leave a lot of room to object, and pushing Anakin to refuse to race would most likely end with hin dead or sold off.

    Yeah. I guess that's fair. Point to you, Sir.
    ~Shia~

    Member - Houseclan t'Charvon (STO)
    Shiarrael e'Tal'Aura t'Charvon, LvL 65, Rom Sci
    S'aana ir'Virinat t'Charvon, Lvl 65, Rom Eng
    T'Lyra, LvL 65, Fed, Vul Sci
    Ta'el, Lvl 63, Rom Tac
    Sukima, Lvl 65, Fed Vul Sci

    House Miliskeera in exile (NW)
    Sereska Miliskeera, Lvl 70 OP - Devotion (Just.)/Protection (Just.)
    Shizlee Miliskeera, Lvl 70 DC - Divine Oracle (Right.)/Anointed Champion (Faith.)
    Finithey Miliskeera, Lvl 70 HR - Stormwarden (Combat)/Pathfinder (Trapper)
    Maya Sik-Miliskeera, Lvl 70 CW - Spellstorm
    Irae Sik-Miliskeera, Lvl 70 TR - Master Inflitrator
  • nightside#8350 nightside Member Posts: 10 Arc User
    Star Trek Picard is a good illustration of how Star Trek is multiple genres, while the newer Star Wars stuff is an illustration of how it (SW) is a genre transforming.

    Picard is part of the Next Generation mood and setting of classical space opera, while Discovery was a radical departure and more like a combat action series. Kirk materials are actually 'shoot em up cowboy westerns' in space with a heavy hand of introspective Western Philosophy thrown in - that philosophy aspect carried over into Next Generation and hopefully will be present in the Picard series, as it was lacking in Discovery and "Enterprise".

    But having gone back over and rewatched some of the old and news series, its all together still "Trek". Despite my favorite Trek stuff (philosophy/space opera) being more of a niche...

    And no, I don't get that feeling at all with the various Star Wars. They are one genre, but what changes seems critically self destructive to that genre. The blood cell force script change that took the nebulous philosophy of Yoda and turned it into a Eugenics fantasy, or the gender/racial politics of representation in the latest iteration - space adventure remained space adventure, but the fans of that genre weren't given a niche, rather their sacred cows were retconned into the recycling bin, Leading to new audiences, but losing the old.

    I think Picard is a step in the right direction. And as for Discovery, Stamets and Wiseman were among my favorite characters, fitting perfectly into the Exploration/Space Opera aspect. I wanted to like Burnham, but those familiar with Mary Sue/Black Hole Sue tropes will understand how this didn't work. Actually, Burnham's icon could probably be the new Poster Child for Mary Sue. It's characters like Stamets and Culber that saved the series for me.
  • crypticarmsmancrypticarmsman Member Posts: 3,297 Arc User
    Star Trek Picard is a good illustration of how Star Trek is multiple genres, while the newer Star Wars stuff is an illustration of how it (SW) is a genre transforming.

    Picard is part of the Next Generation mood and setting of classical space opera, while Discovery was a radical departure and more like a combat action series. Kirk materials are actually 'shoot em up cowboy westerns' in space with a heavy hand of introspective Western Philosophy thrown in - that philosophy aspect carried over into Next Generation and hopefully will be present in the Picard series, as it was lacking in Discovery and "Enterprise".

    ...
    ^^^
    How can you claim the above before seeing the ACTUAL Picard series? (Just curious.)
    Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012
    TOS_Connie_Sig_final9550Pop.jpg
    PWE Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
  • azrael605azrael605 Member Posts: 10,564 Arc User
    Burnham is categorically not a mary sue. Mary sues do not fail, had Burnham been one the Battle of the Binary Stars would never have happened, she would have had no charges filed against her, etc. Maybe you should make sure you understand the term before using it?
    There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

    One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.

    Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events.

    Robert Heinlein
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 3,449 Arc User
    edited September 12
    azrael605 wrote: »
    Burnham is categorically not a mary sue. Mary sues do not fail, had Burnham been one the Battle of the Binary Stars would never have happened, she would have had no charges filed against her, etc. Maybe you should make sure you understand the term before using it?

    There is no "official" definition of a Mary Sue. Different dictionaries and sources describe the term in different ways, but "never failing" is not a universal trait listed in all definitions. Some describe a Mary Sue as simply being "too good" at "too many things". You know, like Wesley Crusher.

    Anyway, the point is that since the term is described differently in different places, you don't get to say that your personal definition (which includes the "never failing" trait) is more right than someone else's personal definition that may not include that exact trait.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • azrael605azrael605 Member Posts: 10,564 Arc User
    Interesting yet incorrect that you claim there is no official definition. I found it in a dictionary entry in about 5 seconds. Quote.


    Mar·y Sue
    noun
    (originally in fan fiction) a type of female character who is depicted as unrealistically lacking in flaws or weaknesses.
    "she was not a ‘strong woman’ so much as an insufferable Mary Sue"

    People who fail cannot be "unrealistically lacking in flaws or weaknesses", failing is a flaw, failing is a weakness. Additionally, making wrong choices due to emotional baggage is a major flaw. So by the dictionary definition Burnham is not a Mary Sue.
    There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

    One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.

    Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events.

    Robert Heinlein
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 3,449 Arc User
    edited September 13
    > @azrael605 said:
    > Interesting yet incorrect that you claim there is no official definition. I found it in a dictionary entry in about 5 seconds. Quote.

    You missed my point. I know there are definitions out there. But DIFFERENT dictionaries and sources have DIFFERENT definitions, and "never fails" is not a universal trait found in EVERY definition.

    So no, there is no "official" definition; just a bunch of different definitions from different sources. And while you may favor a definition that fits your personal preferences, that doesn't make that definition better than a different one someone else prefers.

    And just for the record, I'm honestly not trying to play semantics with you. The point I'm trying to make is simply that this whole "Mary Sue" thing is more of a "concept" than a strict definition. That being the case, people are going to see characters they feel fit the "concept", even if you don't think they perfectly fit a strict definition you adhere to.

    For example, lots of people think Wesley Crusher is a Mary Sue, even though he isn't female and had his failures. Like I said, it's more of a "concept" than a strict definition.
    Post edited by thegrandnagus1 on

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,798 Arc User
    azrael605 wrote: »
    Burnham is categorically not a mary sue. Mary sues do not fail, had Burnham been one the Battle of the Binary Stars would never have happened, she would have had no charges filed against her, etc. Maybe you should make sure you understand the term before using it?

    There is no "official" definition of a Mary Sue. Different dictionaries and sources describe the term in different ways, but "never failing" is not a universal trait listed in all definitions. Some describe a Mary Sue as simply being "too good" at "too many things". You know, like Wesley Crusher.

    Anyway, the point is that since the term is described differently in different places, you don't get to say that your personal definition (which includes the "never failing" trait) is more right than someone else's personal definition that may not include that exact trait.

    The most complete definition I've found is from TV Tropes. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue

    One thing that reasonable Mary Sue definitions (i.e. "female character I don't like" doesn't qualify) do tend to include is that the character has a more or less flawless personality and is universally loved. Or when s/he isn't, the person who criticizes them is always made out to be a dickhead who unreasonably has it out for him/her.

    Michael Burnham conclusively fails this criterion. She has significant character flaws which are plot-critical, and when she blows it in a big way in the premiere, the other characters react accordingly. They're horrified at what she's done and don't fully trust her for many months, as indeed they should not.

    Is she written perfectly well? No, there's significant room for improvement (exactly how much is debatable). But she isn't a Mary Sue.
    "Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
    — Sabaton, "Great War"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • shadowfang240shadowfang240 Member Posts: 33,207 Arc User
    when i want to know if a character is a mary sue/gary stu, i use a test - specifically, this test: https://www.springhole.net/writing/marysue.htm​​
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!

    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."

    How Game Devs SHOULD be interacted with:
    http://askagamedev.tumblr.com/post/157238832062/i-remember-your-52080-rule-and-it-was-an-awesome

    "Curiosity is bad! It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed...and more importantly, it makes you poor!"

    "Beware of dog. Or possibly, enhanced, psycho-addicted, cybernetically-enhanced nightstalker death-dealing dog from hell."
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.

    Stand with Star Trek: The Animated Series content for STO! #TASforSTO
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 3,449 Arc User
    starswordc wrote: »
    azrael605 wrote: »
    Burnham is categorically not a mary sue. Mary sues do not fail, had Burnham been one the Battle of the Binary Stars would never have happened, she would have had no charges filed against her, etc. Maybe you should make sure you understand the term before using it?

    There is no "official" definition of a Mary Sue. Different dictionaries and sources describe the term in different ways, but "never failing" is not a universal trait listed in all definitions. Some describe a Mary Sue as simply being "too good" at "too many things". You know, like Wesley Crusher.

    Anyway, the point is that since the term is described differently in different places, you don't get to say that your personal definition (which includes the "never failing" trait) is more right than someone else's personal definition that may not include that exact trait.

    The most complete definition I've found is from TV Tropes. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue

    If you think that article is a "definition" then you are ignoring what it says at the beginning:

    "What that character type is, exactly, differs wildly from circle to circle, and often from person to person. TV Tropes doesn't get to set what the term means; the best we can do is capture the way it is used."

    I agree that is a good article, and it proves my point: there is no consensus. But even if it did lay down some strict definition, it would still only be one source among many offering one opinion among many. Personally, I think it is more beneficial to look at a character in a "big picture" way rather than tying to find some rare exception to why a character is or isn't a Mary Sue. In other words, "as a whole" does this character seem "too perfect" or "too good at everything"?

    To me personally, Burnham is one of the most unlikable Trek "good guys" I have ever seen. And because we live in the age we live in, I'm obligated to say "it has nothing to do with her race/gender". I simply find her "know it all" attitude and repeated insubordination to her superiors to be insufferable. Is she a Mary Sue? It doesn't really matter to me due to my previous thoughts.

    But despite my distaste for Burnham, I enjoyed Disco S1 for it's overall story and characters, and especially S2 because of Pike. And I'll probably enjoy whatever happens in S3.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • majorcharvenakmajorcharvenak Member Posts: 175 Arc User
    edited September 13
    So...maybe...the writers can put Discovery in the future and in the Star Wars galaxy. Michael can be trained in the ways of the Force and after Rey beats the FO, she can sign onto the Discovery as an engineer. Win-win for everyone! Let there be peace between these two fandom. o:)

    *Tongue and cheek folks. I'm fully aware of the issues with that so Forum Lecturers can stand down*
    ~Shia~

    Member - Houseclan t'Charvon (STO)
    Shiarrael e'Tal'Aura t'Charvon, LvL 65, Rom Sci
    S'aana ir'Virinat t'Charvon, Lvl 65, Rom Eng
    T'Lyra, LvL 65, Fed, Vul Sci
    Ta'el, Lvl 63, Rom Tac
    Sukima, Lvl 65, Fed Vul Sci

    House Miliskeera in exile (NW)
    Sereska Miliskeera, Lvl 70 OP - Devotion (Just.)/Protection (Just.)
    Shizlee Miliskeera, Lvl 70 DC - Divine Oracle (Right.)/Anointed Champion (Faith.)
    Finithey Miliskeera, Lvl 70 HR - Stormwarden (Combat)/Pathfinder (Trapper)
    Maya Sik-Miliskeera, Lvl 70 CW - Spellstorm
    Irae Sik-Miliskeera, Lvl 70 TR - Master Inflitrator
  • redeyedravenredeyedraven Member Posts: 837 Arc User
    edited September 13
    Burnham is actually not bad when she is not the sole focus; as a secondary lead she'd have worked much better to begin with. The writers of DIS didn't understand that Vulcans and humans acting like them are not exactly ideal for interesting protagonists. They thought Vulcans are instantly a hit with audiences because the iconic Spock happened to be one. They took this as far as to simply re-using Spock.
    It's a bit like with the ST-movies and half of them emulating the Khan-type-villain. They took that as far as re-using him as well.

    See the pattern.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 34,230 Arc User
    I agree that is a good article, and it proves my point: there is no consensus. But even if it did lay down some strict definition, it would still only be one source among many offering one opinion among many. Personally, I think it is more beneficial to look at a character in a "big picture" way rather than tying to find some rare exception to why a character is or isn't a Mary Sue. In other words, "as a whole" does this character seem "too perfect" or "too good at everything"?
    But as a counterpoint, if multiple disparate definitions are in play then all usages are wrong according to at least one of the definitions, and thus the term is useless to describe a character.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 34,230 Arc User
    Burnham is actually not bad when she is not the sole focus; as a secondary lead she'd have worked much better to begin with. The writers of DIS didn't understand that Vulcans and humans acting like them are not exactly ideal for interesting protagonists. They thought Vulcans are instantly a hit with audiences because the iconic Spock happened to be one. They took this as far as to simply re-using Spock.
    It's a bit like with the ST-movies and half of them emulating the Khan-type-villain. They took that as far as re-using him as well.

    See the pattern.
    Yeah, Vulcan characters are not actually universally liked by fans. The concept of the race is liked, but the actual characters aren't. Sometimes they're straight villains.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 3,449 Arc User
    > @markhawkman said:
    > (Quote)
    > But as a counterpoint, if multiple disparate definitions are in play then all usages are wrong according to at least one of the definitions, and thus the term is useless to describe a character.

    That is actually correct, hence my "big picture" philosophy described earlier.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 48,834 Arc User
    I attribute Burnham's "know it all" attitude to her background as a Science Officer. Some scientists do tend to lean a bit that way in varying degrees. However I feel this attitude only really showed up in subjects she was familiar with. In instances where she didn't know... she did have some clueless moments where she was unsure. From what I've seen she's evolved as a character in season 2.

    But still... Pike was awesome. Need more Pike now. I especially like how they actually showed Pike wasn't perfect either.
    66998372863950ee98cf7da9786e2ea9-db80k0m.png
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out a Delta Pack, Temporal Pack, and Gamma Pack
    The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • azrael605azrael605 Member Posts: 10,564 Arc User
    > @rattler2 said:
    > I attribute Burnham's "know it all" attitude to her background as a Science Officer. Some scientists do tend to lean a bit that way in varying degrees. However I feel this attitude only really showed up in subjects she was familiar with. In instances where she didn't know... she did have some clueless moments where she was unsure. From what I've seen she's evolved as a character in season 2.
    >
    > But still... Pike was awesome. Need more Pike now. I especially like how they actually showed Pike wasn't perfect either.

    Pike, Spock, and Commander Una (Number One) are returning in 3 new Short Treks.
    There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

    One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.

    Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events.

    Robert Heinlein
  • azrael605azrael605 Member Posts: 10,564 Arc User
    Heard this recently, and its on topic.

    There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

    One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.

    Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events.

    Robert Heinlein
Sign In or Register to comment.