Heheh, man, that starkiller base. I really had to turn off my nitpick mode when that came up in the story. Too many "Wait a minute, if they are doing that with a star, then how is....*insert laundry list of actual scientific things that would happen that didn't*" But I was able to hold it back and just say "Meh, it looks cool, even if it's entirely unrealistic. Who cares." xD But it was a close fight when I first saw it!BloatedGuppy said:
Ooooookay. Why is the term "Mary Sue" being thrown around like paint?
- Thread starter Parasondox
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I tend to think that the Mary Sue, as a concept, has been latched on by individuals with toxic points of view.
Rey isn't a Mary Sue in the sense that her abilities don't make sense or are severely outstretched, and neither is, say, Furiosa. Both are capable characters who just so happen to be women. Unfortunately, some "critics" tend to equate any capably-written woman to aggressive third-wave feminism - as if any female character who's demonstrably capable had "I DON'T NEED NO MAN!" written as their subtext.
It's true that Jessica Jones doesn't need a man outright, for instance. She's got super strength, for one, and sharp deductive capabilities that got her something like a steady job. She is, however, a human being with emotional needs who may end up needing someone else for emotional support. Whether that "someone else" is male or female is irrelevant - what matters is that she's a nuanced character.
Redpillers or certain so-called "feminists" are looking at characterization in a skewed manner. We're finally reaching an era in which narrative or cinematographic protagonists can be as nuanced as real persons are without risking moral outrage, and some people are still fixated on finding bugaboos in everything the silver screen puts out.
All of that, however, doesn't exclude the fact that some films are clumsy about certain issues, and that sensitivity is something that needs to be worked on. Nobody is born with flawless empathy.
Rey isn't a Mary Sue in the sense that her abilities don't make sense or are severely outstretched, and neither is, say, Furiosa. Both are capable characters who just so happen to be women. Unfortunately, some "critics" tend to equate any capably-written woman to aggressive third-wave feminism - as if any female character who's demonstrably capable had "I DON'T NEED NO MAN!" written as their subtext.
It's true that Jessica Jones doesn't need a man outright, for instance. She's got super strength, for one, and sharp deductive capabilities that got her something like a steady job. She is, however, a human being with emotional needs who may end up needing someone else for emotional support. Whether that "someone else" is male or female is irrelevant - what matters is that she's a nuanced character.
Redpillers or certain so-called "feminists" are looking at characterization in a skewed manner. We're finally reaching an era in which narrative or cinematographic protagonists can be as nuanced as real persons are without risking moral outrage, and some people are still fixated on finding bugaboos in everything the silver screen puts out.
All of that, however, doesn't exclude the fact that some films are clumsy about certain issues, and that sensitivity is something that needs to be worked on. Nobody is born with flawless empathy.
Anime and Manga have had them for years, thanks ever so much. Nausicaa puts Rey to shame, and she did it all with a pet squirrel. For that matter, go watch a Katherine Hepburn movie some time.undeadsuitor said:
My problem with TFA was the weak writing that was endemic throughout the whole thing (first and foremost that it rehashed the Ep. 4 script which was unnecessary) Part of that weak writing was giving Rey some Force-related abilities that even Darth Vader needed extensive training to use. Leia from Ep 4 was superior writing because they didn't beat us over the head by giving her magic powers, they made her a smartass go-getter, which was great all by itself. Add to that the hype machine and, well, Rey kinda gets the short end of the stick for all sides. If there hadn't been so much fail at the get-go, people wouldn't have left feeling unsatisfied. The problem is that nowadays, a lot of the this empowerment stuff is in your face because people have agendas (yes they do, be honest with yourselves), and it doesn't need to be.
There were well written, competent female characters back when movies were black & white and coffee was a nickel. The difference is back then they didn't need to masculinize female characters and feminize the males, they just wrote the characters well. Rey didn't need to be the man and lead poor Finn around by the nose to be competent, she just had to be competent.
Just a nit pick, supposedly things like the Death Star only have around 10,000 or so staff to a maximum of maybe a hundred thousand... In a galaxy that contains Trillions of humans, that's not a notable loss of life on the larger scale.Areloch said:
The Death Star had ~2 million on board, some 1.2 million of which were Storm Troopers. Equivalent to the staffing of about 50 Star Destroyers.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Yes, I looked it up. What. What of it. You got something to say, about me being a huge nerd?
Because they're ideological fanatics who believe wholly in the righteousness of their cause? Why do people suicide bomb? Why did the Third Reich have so much support?Areloch said:
Eh. It's a big galaxy. I have the Edge of the Empire tabletop RPG at home, and the galaxy map has hundreds and hundreds of worlds. They could gut the Core Worlds/cripple the Republic and still have plenty left to reign over.Areloch said:
This is why no one wants to go see a space fantasy movie with Neil Degrasse Tyson. Our rational brains need to take a short vacation to survive past the opening minutes of the original film. The one that always gets me is how the ships are always lined up in naval battle formation, all perfectly visible to the naked human eye. It's ludicrous. But fun.Happyninja42 said:
Remember the death stars weren't actually designed to be used. They were designed as a symbol to fear. Palpatine had almost complete control of the republic and wanted to get rid of the senate, but he feared rebellion without a diplomatic base, so the death star was there to prevent wide scale rebellion.
Destroying planets is economically terrible, that goes double if you have to hollow out a planet AND destroy a star to destroy other planets.
Destroying planets is economically terrible, that goes double if you have to hollow out a planet AND destroy a star to destroy other planets.
Or the pay is really good. Also the benefits. "Join up and get this baller white armor and free blaster! Also food!".BloatedGuppy said:
Fair enough. I've been out of the Star Wars loop long enough I can't remember how many planets were considered habitable and/or inhabited. So they've got a few dozen more iterations of death stars to build before they'll purge the galaxy then if they only take out 1-6 planets a go
Really, because I just looked both up on Wookieepeia and that's not exactly accurate by canon standards, The DS-1 Death Star [http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Death_Star] had a crew of 342,953 Imperial Navy and Army, along with 25,984 Stormtroopers. The Death Star II [starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Death_Star_II] had a crew of 637,835 Imperial Navy and Army, but seeing that it was under construction at the time, probably about half or more of that was the construction crew. Especially seeing as they were in a hurry to finish the thing.BloatedGuppy said:
As above I seem to have miscalculated. Still they're big, but you'd want to mitigate the man-power usage to maintain a mobile battle station like that, or run the risk of running short on available military personnel.Areloch said:
Ah, I had checked the 2nd Death Star. Still, this is what Wookiepedia had (apparently, I got the Wookiepedia info from a second hand source) given: Crew (485,560), Gunners (152,275), Troops (1,295,950), Infantry (127,570), Technical personnel (75,860), Pilots (334,432). Is that no longer accurate?KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Not that I uh (cough) know what Wookiepedia is (cough, study ceiling). I'm far too cool for that.
A lot of pages have a canon and EU version. The EU version lists personnel in the millions while the canon version has the numbers Kyuubi posted. The canon numbers come from a book printed for the release of TFA.BloatedGuppy said:
Basically since Yahtzee made an extra punctuation episode referencing the term in regards to Geralt from The Witcher everyone has slowly started to use it to describe characters they don't like. All the while ignoring what he actually had to say in that episode or what the original definition of the term was.
typically, ANY main character in ANYTHING falls under the trope Mary/Gary sue simply because via the demands of plot they:
are the center of attention
have no flaws/flaws are barely brought up
limited character development/seem perfect
beat EVERYONE at EVERYTHING
can brush off being punched by galaxies or equivalent thing
are some archtypical 'chosen one'
everyone, even the badguys, end up liking/falling for them on some level
everyone conveniently knows them
the universe generally revolves around them
they save the day/solve the problem/have tea and crumpets with the entire cast
have a dark/mysterous/tragic/whatever past
convenience explains away atypical powers
by a literary stand point there is next to no difference between a Mary/Gary Sue and your average main character, attempts to make main characters NOT M/Gs by GIVING them over flaws that would make them ugly/scared/insane/etc. and therefore someone NO ONE would want to willing be around... yet they are, are Peggy Sues (Ie: Wolvarine)
the issues is main characters are generally boring, camera's on wheels that allow the audience to experience whatever world, because of this flaw they HAVE to do all or most of the above namely for plot to progress so we can 'see more'... 'good' main characters are ones where these things aren't so obvious with a mix of other innocuous things that make them unique and they act flawed and in 'human' ways... sadly most movies, especially bit 'dramas' like Star Wars aren't going to have this as its a movie and generally the MC must be 'perfect' just to get through the damn plot in less than 2hrs...
characters who typically receive the title of Mary/Gary sue are OCs (original characters) in fan works that for no explicable reason TAKE OVER EVERYTHING and force known characters to act in ways against their norm to accomodate this...
for best examples of Mary/Gary Sues:
-ANY SHOUNEN PROTAGONIST - most notable: Goku, Ichigo, Eren, Naruto, etc. etc.
-ANY SHOUJOU PROTAGONIST - though generally to a less degree as their major flaws come in lack of confidence being 'girls' and 'friendship' fixes everything - Sakura, Usagi, Madoka, etc. etc.
-Comic Books -period- most notable: Superman/Wonderwoman
-Literature - any hero that follows the heroes journey - so everyone...
-Movies -as derived from books 'mostly' follow this- most notable: Neo
simple answer: they're in some way perfect and that's annoying = Mary/Gary Sue = Most Main Characters in general
are the center of attention
have no flaws/flaws are barely brought up
limited character development/seem perfect
beat EVERYONE at EVERYTHING
can brush off being punched by galaxies or equivalent thing
are some archtypical 'chosen one'
everyone, even the badguys, end up liking/falling for them on some level
everyone conveniently knows them
the universe generally revolves around them
they save the day/solve the problem/have tea and crumpets with the entire cast
have a dark/mysterous/tragic/whatever past
convenience explains away atypical powers
by a literary stand point there is next to no difference between a Mary/Gary Sue and your average main character, attempts to make main characters NOT M/Gs by GIVING them over flaws that would make them ugly/scared/insane/etc. and therefore someone NO ONE would want to willing be around... yet they are, are Peggy Sues (Ie: Wolvarine)
the issues is main characters are generally boring, camera's on wheels that allow the audience to experience whatever world, because of this flaw they HAVE to do all or most of the above namely for plot to progress so we can 'see more'... 'good' main characters are ones where these things aren't so obvious with a mix of other innocuous things that make them unique and they act flawed and in 'human' ways... sadly most movies, especially bit 'dramas' like Star Wars aren't going to have this as its a movie and generally the MC must be 'perfect' just to get through the damn plot in less than 2hrs...
characters who typically receive the title of Mary/Gary sue are OCs (original characters) in fan works that for no explicable reason TAKE OVER EVERYTHING and force known characters to act in ways against their norm to accomodate this...
for best examples of Mary/Gary Sues:
-ANY SHOUNEN PROTAGONIST - most notable: Goku, Ichigo, Eren, Naruto, etc. etc.
-ANY SHOUJOU PROTAGONIST - though generally to a less degree as their major flaws come in lack of confidence being 'girls' and 'friendship' fixes everything - Sakura, Usagi, Madoka, etc. etc.
-Comic Books -period- most notable: Superman/Wonderwoman
-Literature - any hero that follows the heroes journey - so everyone...
-Movies -as derived from books 'mostly' follow this- most notable: Neo
simple answer: they're in some way perfect and that's annoying = Mary/Gary Sue = Most Main Characters in general
Sure you are, and so am I...BloatedGuppy said:
But the numbers you're talking are from a EU/Legends source and as @crimson5pheonix the numbers I posted are from a canon source book released in the lead up to TFA. So the larger number is a officially invalid anymore.
crimson5pheonix said:
God damn. If you can't even trust WOOKIEPEDIA as an inviolate source of information anymore, what has the world come to?KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Technically your information is sourced as well, most of it coming from a book published in 2007 and a 1998 CD-ROM something or another.BloatedGuppy said:
You can trust wookieepedia as far as you can trust any wiki, probably a bit more because of the dedication of the fans that run it. It's Disney you can't trust, because they're going to do everything in their power to destroy the EU.BloatedGuppy said: