Star Trek vs. Star Wars (and a collection of memes)

[NIGHTBRINGER]

and for example I do not think Rey is a Mary Sue (a tag too quickly applied these days IMO) or at least not nearly as bad as some might say.

At this point she is the literal poster girl for Mary Sues!

I might make a more in depth post about it tomorrow. Not now though, I have to go to sleep.

I await your defense of this viewpoint.

 

[Aginor]

Ok, so here is my first post about Rey's possible "Mary-Sue"-ness or not.

Let's start with the hardest part to illustrate what a mess we are facing here:
Which definition of "Mary Sue" do you want to use?
There is no clear definition universally agreed on, it basically ranges from "overly strong character" over "character that doesn't suffer significant setbacks in their live" and "side character who can do everything better than the canon characters" to "author avatar" or basically "(female) character I don't like".

So let's establish a baseline using tvtropes and Wikipedia:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CommonMarySueTraits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue

Some of the definitions are straight out because they require the character to either drive the story alone (Rey doesn't), be a side character (Rey isn't), have certain body traits ("Mary Sues never have brown eyes", Daisy Ridley has brown eyes), wear a certain style of clothing (in an unusual color, unusually good-looking, neither is the case for Rey), being instantly liked by allies and feared by enemies (not the case for Rey. She is pretty much a regular joe on Jakku it seems, and neither Han nor the rebellion leaders seem to instantly like her. The antagonists like Stormtroopers, Snoke, or Kylo Ren don't seem to really fear her that much more than others).
The erotic component that is very common to most "Mary Sue" definitions is missing completely. Rey doesn't seduce anyone, and while some people say a bit of sexual tension between her and Kylo or her and Finn I wouldn't exactly say she is flirting with either one.
A special/complex/unusual/meaningful name is also often a requirement, but then in Star Wars everyone has that, so we probably cannot apply that here. If anything then the Skywalkers qualify.


Of course she has some of the common traits, but so have most main characters these days:
- special weapon (her staff. Although she ditches it for the Lightsaber it seems, and the "Mary Sue" special weapons are usually better than what other have, her staff isn't as far as we know)
- dark/special past (her parents left her), but most "Mary Sue" definitions seem to require that it isn't actually bothering her. For Rey it does though, it seems to be her main personal character arc. Her past is significant for the story, one of the most intense scenes in TLJ is Rey going to the dark side hole thing on Ahch'To and discovering her parents are nobody, which seems to be a major blow for her. That's very un-"Mary-Sue"-like.
- no major setbacks (I would actually argue that this partly stems from the way movie stories are told in recent years. They often shorten the tedious parts to short sequences to have more awesome scenes in the movie. I think TLJ is not a bad example for that. Rey spent quite some time on Ahch'To with Luke ignoring her, and while training. It just comes across very short in the movie. I would also say that the inability to save Han on Starkiller base, Luke not wanting to train her, learning that her parents were nobodies, almost getting killed by Snoke, ARE setbacks. She overcomes them, as we expect from the hero of a story, and maybe those parts of the movies are too short, but I think it is unfair to say she doesn't suffer setbacks)
- unusually skilled / quick learner. (Well, it is kind of the main plot point. There was an awakening of the force and it seems it is centered around her. She also is the main hero of the trilogy, so yeah, unusually skilled. BUT she is also pretty dilettantic with the Lightsaber (prior to her time on Ahch-To) Hadn't Kylo been shot by Chewbacca he would never have lost the fight against her on Starkiller base. Had Kylo not saved her from Snoke she wouldn't have survived that scene, as Snoke was easily besting her with the Force without even sweating (and that is after her training on Ahch-To). It is true though that she does seem to master parts of the Force usage extremely quickly, like the mind trick for example, but then she is rather unimpressive in other Force abilities, at least compared to prequel Force users. Which is a good thing because they were trained since childhood, and she isn't).


Also keep in mind: Star Wars is generally centered around heroic stories with heroic characters. I don't see why Rey would qualify as "Mary Sue" while the main characters in the OT or the prequels, and especially in the Clone Wars series wouldn't.
Also: Star Wars isn't exactly known for well-developed character arcs anway, IMO Rey (while certainly not the best character in movie history, far from it) ranks pretty high among Star Wars movie characters concerning character development, as Star Wars characters are usually pretty flat. Oh, and of course we haven't seen the whole trilogy yet, while we look at the other characters in a finished way. That skews judgement a bit of course.

Ok, enough for now, I have to work.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Let's start with the hardest part to illustrate what a mess we are facing here:
Which definition of "Mary Sue" do you want to use?
There is no clear definition universally agreed on, it basically ranges from "overly strong character" over "character that doesn't suffer significant setbacks in their live" and "side character who can do everything better than the canon characters" to "author avatar" or basically "(female) character I don't like".

So let's establish a baseline using tvtropes and Wikipedia:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CommonMarySueTraits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue

Some of the definitions are straight out because they require the character to either drive the story alone (Rey doesn't), be a side character (Rey isn't), have certain body traits ("Mary Sues never have brown eyes", Daisy Ridley has brown eyes), wear a certain style of clothing (in an unusual color, unusually good-looking, neither is the case for Rey),

This is as good a place to star as any I suppose. Let's start with a trusty Google definition:


This definition is more concise than the ones put forth in the articles you provided and I think it is more in line with how people are using the term. The historical development of the term is interesting, but I think the term has moved well beyond that. Being a sort of "unofficial" term, variations in its usage and meaning will vary. For instance, in the following video (which is admittedly a singular person's opinion), a Mary Sue is defined along 7 variables:

The original video can be found here

Personally I feel that 6 these categories are pretty spot on. I would argue against the "No Personality" category on the principle that I don't quite equate it necessarily with a Mary Sue (meaning a Mary Sue can still have a personality) and also that Rey (and Luke) both have a personality.

So with that, some of the key aspects of a Mary Sue (as the term is typically used in a modern day context) revolves around any iteration of the following traits:

• Overpowered/Unexplained Power level (I think these two are inter-related)
• Perfectly good (sometimes a few quirks are thrown in, but they are always minor and insignificant)
• Instantly liked (or near instantly liked without sufficient justification)
• Feels like wish fulfillment (enter the Disney feminism & identity politics push)
• Character barely experiences failure/low-points/embarrassments (as with the "perfectly good" criteria, a few minor or insignificant setbacks can be thrown in here)

People might employ slight variations to these categories and nor are all the categories equally important, but for the most part I think this is a fair assessment. I don't think anybody cares about the character's eye colour or clothing style when assessing Mary Sues. Even if those items were historically linked with the term, they are pretty much irrelevant when used in today's context. If you want to argue semantics that is a different story, but the fact remains that Rey fulfills all the core principle elements of a Mary Sue.

and neither Han nor the rebellion leaders seem to instantly like her.

Really. Han offers her a job literally 5 seconds after learning her name. He gives her a blaster, not out of self-preservation but because he is looking out for her. In the entire scene it is evident that he already likes her and is looking out for her as a father figure.

The antagonists like Stormtroopers, Snoke, or Kylo Ren don't seem to really fear her that much more than others).

Stormtroopers are too stupid to fear anybody for the most part; they are pretty much cannon fodder. You are correct that Snoke didn't fear her, it's a shame that he has been removed from the series. Kylo begins to fear her pretty quickly...

Now is the fear "instant"? No, but close enough. Here you also see an example of her demonstrating her unearned OP abilities. Although she has great potential in the force, she is completely uninitiated at this point and should be easy prey for Kylo who should be significantly more advanced than her (as he trained under Luke AND Snoke; and has Skywalker lineage to boot!)

The erotic component that is very common to most "Mary Sue" definitions is missing completely. Rey doesn't seduce anyone, and while some people say a bit of sexual tension between her and Kylo or her and Finn I wouldn't exactly say she is flirting with either one.

Firstly I would argue that this not really important in assessing a Mary Sue. That is not a core criteria in the way the term is used today. Also, the nature of Star Wars (family friendly series) pretty much makes this an impossibility

no major setbacks (I would actually argue that this partly stems from the way movie stories are told in recent years. They often shorten the tedious parts to short sequences to have more awesome scenes in the movie. I think TLJ is not a bad example for that. Rey spent quite some time on Ahch'To with Luke ignoring her, and while training. It just comes across very short in the movie. I would also say that the inability to save Han on Starkiller base, Luke not wanting to train her, learning that her parents were nobodies, almost getting killed by Snoke, ARE setbacks. She overcomes them, as we expect from the hero of a story, and maybe those parts of the movies are too short, but I think it is unfair to say she doesn't suffer setbacks)

Snoke making her look the fool is about the closest thing she has to having a set back. Like I've said previously, Snoke was an intriguing character but he has been removed. Even then, the setback is inconsequential and short-lived. She loses nothing in the interaction and the situation quickly resolves itself (and not by her overcoming it as you suggest, and thank god for at least that)

Learning her parents were nobodies is perhaps an emotional setback, but it is not due to a failing or lack on her part. She has zero control over it. She didn't fail in that situation. Also as a side note, we don't actually even know this to be true. This is what Kylo is telling her. I could be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if the whole situation with her parents end up being something else entirely.

Han dying is hardly her failing as well. She wasn't involved in that scene other than to react to it. That was between Kylo and Han. It is Han's failing (or Kylo's, from a certain point of view *pun intended*)

Luke not training her is the worst example of them all. That is just a prime example of the dumpster fire that Rian Johnson turned Luke into. That is a failing of Luke not Rey. What's worse, it turns out that she doesn't even need Luke's training, she is perfectly fine without it (because of the supposed download from Kylo's mind during their mergers). She swings a lightsaber at some rocks and all of a sudden she is able to school Snokes elite guard.

Not one of these examples exhibit a true failure on her part with any real or lasting consequences.

unusually skilled / quick learner. (Well, it is kind of the main plot point. There was an awakening of the force and it seems it is centered around her. She also is the main hero of the trilogy, so yeah, unusually skilled. BUT she is also pretty dilettantic with the Lightsaber (prior to her time on Ahch-To)

The other characters that came before had to earn their abilities. Everything is just handed to her on a silver platter by the SJW writers.

Rey thinks up a solution on the spot to fix the Millennium Falcon that completely surprises Han. Han, who has spent most of his life time flying, fixing and modifying that ship. Nobody should know its systems better than him.

Rey also masters flying the Falcon within minutes of first stepping foot on it.

Rey (as you eluded to) masters the Jedi mind trick, without any training or experience. How did she even know about it, let alone know how to do it?

As for her lightsaber skills, she is gifted those pretty quickly as well. Her "training" in Ahch-To is a joke. She swings around her lightsaber aimlessly and we are meant to think this somehow constitutes as training. Luke in no way instructs or demonstrates its usage to her.

Hadn't Kylo been shot by Chewbacca he would never have lost the fight against her on Starkiller base.

Kylo should still have been able to beat Rey. Even injured he should have been able to easily defeat her. She has no experience with the weapon or with the force. He has been trained by two masters (Luke and Snoke). He should have been able to cut her down in seconds. Not only that, but she was able to out use the force against Kylo by pulling the saber to her hand when he was trying to do the same. How did she learn to do that, and how did she surpass him so quickly?

Read the Darth Bane trilogy, there is a scene where Bane is wounded (far beyond that of of Kylo) and read how the Dark Side can be used to overcome such a predicament. Now Kylo is obviously no Darth Bane (nor is any of the Disney stuff anywhere close to the quality of the Darth Bane series) but the point still stands.

It is true though that she does seem to master parts of the Force usage extremely quickly, like the mind trick for example, but then she is rather unimpressive in other Force abilities, at least compared to prequel Force users. Which is a good thing because they were trained since childhood, and she isn't).

Obviously she can't stand up directly against the Prequel characters who have been trained since a young age by the greatest masters in the galaxy under a system that had been developed and honed for thousands of years. However, for her relative level of training/experience she is far above any of them. She masters things without training that would take them many years of study/practice to grasp. Her rate of learning is far superior to any of them (including Anakin).

As for her force abilities being underdeveloped, are you kidding me? She has no training and she is able to complete feats that are beyond trained users.

She is able to telekinetically overpower Kylo and draw the saber to her hand (without ever being trained to do so).

And then there is this little gem. Probably the worst example of her overpowered force abilities...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYxlpbbHhvI
Now compare and contrast this with Luke learning to do the same thing (with more training)...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Gen_qheOo
Notice the difference? She has less training than him and easily completes the task while he struggles and fails at lifting a few small rocks one at a time. Her lifting all those heavy giant stones is probably one of the greatest (if not the greatest) demonstration of that particular skill in the films, consider both the weight and number of the boulders she is manipulating (without even looking that concentrated or stressed). Even Yoda (with hundreds of years of training and experience) cannot preform the feat as easily. He has to concentrate when lifting the Xwing out of the swamp and also when preventing the column from crushing Anakin and Obi-wan after the Dooku fight.

Also keep in mind: Star Wars is generally centered around heroic stories with heroic characters. I don't see why Rey would qualify as "Mary Sue" while the main characters in the OT or the prequels, and especially in the Clone Wars series wouldn't.

Because the prequel characters have earned their abilities. Training, experience, guidance, failure coupled with learning... rinse and repeat across decades. There was an entire organization that had slowly developed proper training methods to develop such skills. Training classes, mentors, Masters, the Jedi library. I'm not sure how you can even equate the two.

Rey just gets it almost immediately without all the preparation and suffering that should come before it. We should all be so lucky, no need for schools, books, teachers, practice or coaches.

 

[Paradoxical Pacifism]

i think its just inexperienced writing

 

[Aginor]

Ok. To be honest I don't even see the point of arguing with that because I disagree in pretty much every point, starting with the definition and also the interpretations of the scenes AND the comparisons with the OT characters.
I don't see this going anywhere positive.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

i think its just inexperienced writing

I honestly wish that was the case. This is simply what happens when a company puts a political agenda over good storytelling. Heck, the president of the company is actually spelling it out for us...

I disagree in pretty much every point, starting with the definition

You mean the dictionary definition I provided? Try Googling it!

and also the interpretations of the scenes AND the comparisons with the OT characters.

Luke while training under one of the greatest Jedi Masters in history has a difficult time moving one small stone at a time.

Rey, without any training lifts many dozens of giant boulders with relative ease.

I provide the relevant video clips of the two events.

I posit that Rey might be unjustifiably over powered and is demonstrating force abilities that are far beyond what her level of training should allow.... you somehow disagree...

I don't see this going anywhere positive.

Not to be mean, but from your point of view in the current debate, I agree. More seriously, believe whatever you want my friend, you are of course entitled to your own personal opinion. Go in peace my scaly brother.

 

[Aginor]

That's exactly the reason why nobody likes to discuss with you anymore. You keep presenting your opinions as facts.

No, the definition is not correct, that dictionary entry is just wrong, it leaves aside the most important parts.
I don't care how many people use a word wrongly. Wrong is wrong. And posting some snarky meme doesn't make your point stronger, but weaker.
I presented sources explaining the origins that term and the common traits of such a character, and how it is interpreted. You chose to ignore them and presented a shortened (and thus false) interpretation of the term, a link even without a proper source.
And guess what: that dictionary entry you posted doesn't even appear if I Google the term "Mary Sue", instead I get a whole page of links to proper sources.
I guess it sucks to use Google from a country where obviously Google thinks people are too dumb to click on a link or understand the definition of a word if it is more than one sentence long. (Just to clarify: I disagree with Google)

And no you might be wrong about Yoda and Luke and the very scenes you mentioned allow that interpretation. and you are comparing a 1970s movie with a 2010s movie without taking into account that movie making has changed drastically in the last 40 years, and the scenes you are posted allow different interpretations than yours.

You don't care about the truth, just about "winning" something that isn't a competition.
That you are implying I would leave a conversation because of weak arguments when I already presented strong arguments and explained to you why they apply is exactly the reason why I am not willing to discuss the matter at that level. You drag the discussion off topic and onto a meta level instead of facing the real arguments.
I am not ready to spend a significant amount of time thinking about, gathering, and formulating arguments only to be met with that kind of condescension.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

Honestly, I leave this thread for 5 minutes and look what happens - a real sh*tstorm is brewing here!

While my views are not as drastically aligned to either side, I have to admit that I agree with @NIGHTBRINGER. Rey is ridiculously overpowered compared to the other Force-sensitive characters in the saga. The scene where Rey mind-tricks the Stormtrooper is silly because there are no books in her downed AT-AT home as far as I can see (indeed I’d be sceptical to the fact that she is even able to read), so how would she have known that a mind-trick could be performed, and indeed how would she be be successful on only her second attempt ever? I know she could have heard about it from passing traders, but even then it’s still pretty far-fetched as she’s never practiced the art. I think many of Rey’s super-powered abilities were in part to try to inflict a feeling of nostalgia in people to remind them of the OT and get them to forget the Prequels where we had a whole Jedi Order with Padawan learners who had to spend years in training. Certainly J.J. Abrams comes across as an OT purist from some of the things he’s said, and a lot of the story in VII and some of VIII are too remiscent of the OT turned up to 11 in terms of the ‘Hero’s Journey’ routine.

Indeed I see Rey as being largely Luke turned up to 11 - I do agree Luke struggles during his early training compared to Rey, which is fine and shows he has flaws, but he is still able to become a knight-level Jedi in only 3 years, compared to most Jedi Padawans trained in the Clone Wars era who still had to be trained from babies to become similarly powerful, and even then Luke is stronger with the Force than most of them ever became throughout their lives. Rey is like this but sped up 100,000 times in that she’s able to become a Knight-level Jedi in around a day or two. Both are prodigy figures, but at least Luke is semi-believable because he does make mistakes. Conversely Rey is not - she is able to defeat a highly-trained Force user in several minutes and get to know the Millennium Falcon better than its pilot for around 40 years in a similarly short time, the closest thing to making a mistake being demolishing half the Jakku marketplace when she first pilots the Falcon. You have to admit it’s pretty silly and overexaggerated.

movie making has changed drastically in the last 40 years

This may be true in some ways (effects, historical accuracy, acting e.t.c), but they still like to fall back on the same old tales and repeat them to death (at least they do in the Sequel Trilogy).

 

[ravagekitteh]

I’m not going to comment on the whole Mary Sue angle of things as it’s just causing problems, but I will say that I do agree with @Aginor a bit about the the way you sometimes phrase your arguments @NIGHTBRINGER. I don’t think that you only care about winning arguments, but the manner in which you present yours can occasionally make it seem that way. This is a Star Wars thread, so 99% of the time points are going to be inherently subjective - this Mary Sue debate among them. In my view, this means that while you are welcome to present arguments against other people’s views, at the end of the day, due to the topics subjective nature, they are under no obligation to change their opinions. We’ve had this discussion before on another thread, and I got the sense you agreed with me. However, in a lot of these debates, your arguments are phrased in less of an ‘I disagree with this because’ manner and more of a ‘you’re wrong because’ manner.

I’m not saying your points are invalid - far from it - but neither are anyone else’s, and although I know you don’t mean it, the way you phrase some things sort of implies that they are sometimes. The way you use memes can be very condescending, especially to someone like @Aginor who has put time and effort into crafting a well thought out response. It is a habit of your’s to act like you have all the answers and what you say is always true - while yes, we are all guilty of this at one point or another (myself included), with you it does seem to be more prevalent than most.

This is not meant to be an attack on you or your opinions, and I’m sorry if it comes across that way - that is not my intention. I understand that this is all supposed to be a bit of fun and I don’t want this to form a rift between any of us - I think that’s the last thing we want. However, perhaps in the future it might be a good idea if things were toned down a bit - I think we all get that you feel quite strongly about the subject of Star Wars, among other things, but that’s no reason to get rid of our friendly welcoming atmosphere here! Perhaps for now it might be a good idea for this thread to go back to its original purpose of sharing Star Wars memes before it descends into an all out fight, though I do hope things can be sorted out between us and things can return to the easygoing atmosphere there was before .

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

I’m not going to comment on the whole Mary Sue angle of things as it’s just causing problems, but I will say that I do agree with @Aginor a bit about the the way you sometimes phrase your arguments @NIGHTBRINGER. I don’t think that you only care about winning arguments, but the manner in which you present yours can occasionally make it seem that way. This is a Star Wars thread, so 99% of the time points are going to be inherently subjective - this Mary Sue debate among them. In my view, this means that while you are welcome to present arguments against other people’s views, at the end of the day, due to the topics subjective nature, they are under no obligation to change their opinions. We’ve had this discussion before on another thread, and I got the sense you agreed with me. However, in a lot of these debates, your arguments are phrased in less of an ‘I disagree with this because’ manner and more of a ‘you’re wrong because’ manner.

I’m not saying your points are invalid - far from it - but neither are anyone else’s, and although I know you don’t mean it, the way you phrase some things sort of implies that they are sometimes. The way you use memes can be very condescending, especially to someone like @Aginor who has put time and effort into crafting a well thought out response. It is a habit of your’s to act like you have all the answers and what you say is always true - while yes, we are all guilty of this at one point or another (myself included), with you it does seem to be more prevalent than most.

This is not meant to be an attack on you or your opinions, and I’m sorry if it comes across that way - that is not my intention. I understand that this is all supposed to be a bit of fun and I don’t want this to form a rift between any of us - I think that’s the last thing we want. However, perhaps in the future it might be a good idea if things were toned down a bit - I think we all get that you feel quite strongly about the subject of Star Wars, among other things, but that’s no reason to get rid of our friendly welcoming atmosphere here! Perhaps for now it might be a good idea for this thread to go back to its original purpose of sharing Star Wars memes before it descends into an all out fight, though I do hope things can be sorted out between us and things can return to the easygoing atmosphere there was before .

I do agree with this - I certainly think it’s all started to get a bit too hot-blooded like two Celtic tribes getting wound up over a scrap of land - I was just putting my tuppence in while trying not to wind up either side too much.

I think we should all just calm down and either talk about it in a more reasoned and measured fashion like the civilised men we are (that is, taking other people’s opinions into account without attempting to shout them down with your own and also remaining calm when people counter your arguments) or as @ravagekitteh says, just go back to sharing Star Wars images, videos and memes.

 

[Paradoxical Pacifism]

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

You keep presenting your opinions as facts.

No, the definition is not correct, that dictionary entry is just wrong, it leaves aside the most important parts.
I don't care how many people use a word wrongly. Wrong is wrong.

You claim that I keep presenting my opinions as facts and in the very next sentence you claim that the dictionary definition I provided with a screenshot is incorrect because it is your personal opinion of the word's meaning that is correct. Ironic huh?

No thanks, I'll stick to the dictionary definition over the random articles you found (all of which were wiki articles of some sort).

And guess what: that dictionary entry you posted doesn't even appear if I Google the term "Mary Sue", instead I get a whole page of links to proper sources.

Of course it doesn't, because you didn't ask it to. You have to include the word "definition" (or something similar). That's how Google (and search engines in general) works, it searches based on the keywords you provide it. I even included my search words in my original screenshot just to avoid such misunderstandings, but here it is again (highlighted this time for clarity)...

I guess it sucks to use Google from a country where obviously Google thinks people are too dumb to click on a link or understand the definition of a word if it is more than one sentence long. (Just to clarify: I disagree with Google)

So now we're (by which I mean you are) insulting another person's country? Although I could go down that route (and very easily at that), I won't and instead I'll let that blemish besmirch your record. And I'm the one nobody wants to debate with?

The articles you are touting so proudly are wiki-esque articles. I wouldn't put too much faith in them. They are easily understood, but I can recognize that a person's opinion (which is what they are) can vary greatly from the actual meaning of the word as it is used in the today.

And no you might be wrong about Yoda and Luke and the very scenes you mentioned allow that interpretation. and you are comparing a 1970s movie with a 2010s movie without taking into account that movie making has changed drastically in the last 40 years, and the scenes you are posted allow different interpretations than yours.

The fact that you can't even comprehend that very obvious difference explains why we are in this current predicament.

You don't care about the truth, just about "winning" something that isn't a competition.

Just because things didn't unfold as you had planned, don't start playing the victim card. In any discussion involving a difference of thought/opinion there is an element of truth finding and an element of winning (as the goal is typically to win over your opponent to your side of the argument or to do so with those watching/listening/reading/attending etc). In the same breath, I am willing to move over to my opponent's side should they present me with an argument I can't refute. Don't try to paint me as this win at all costs evil debater who is squashing your noble endeavor to be an altruistic philosophical truth seeker. That simply isn't the case, on both our accounts.

That you are implying I would leave a conversation because of weak arguments when I already presented strong arguments and explained to you why they apply

Arguments that were dismantled with logical argumentation and evidence (direct clips from the movies, etc.). Yes, they, like all media require some interpretation, but those interpretations were pretty obvious. Furthermore, your subsequent post made no attempts to refute the points I laid out for you, just a blanket statement that you disagree.

You drag the discussion off topic and onto a meta level instead of facing the real arguments.

Really?... this was my reply to your post:

This is as good a place to star as any I suppose. Let's start with a trusty Google definition:
View attachment 51737

This definition is more concise than the ones put forth in the articles you provided and I think it is more in line with how people are using the term. The historical development of the term is interesting, but I think the term has moved well beyond that. Being a sort of "unofficial" term, variations in its usage and meaning will vary. For instance, in the following video (which is admittedly a singular person's opinion), a Mary Sue is defined along 7 variables:
View attachment 51738
The original video can be found here

Personally I feel that 6 these categories are pretty spot on. I would argue against the "No Personality" category on the principle that I don't quite equate it necessarily with a Mary Sue (meaning a Mary Sue can still have a personality) and also that Rey (and Luke) both have a personality.

So with that, some of the key aspects of a Mary Sue (as the term is typically used in a modern day context) revolves around any iteration of the following traits:

• Overpowered/Unexplained Power level (I think these two are inter-related)
• Perfectly good (sometimes a few quirks are thrown in, but they are always minor and insignificant)
• Instantly liked (or near instantly liked without sufficient justification)
• Feels like wish fulfillment (enter the Disney feminism & identity politics push)
• Character barely experiences failure/low-points/embarrassments (as with the "perfectly good" criteria, a few minor or insignificant setbacks can be thrown in here)

People might employ slight variations to these categories and nor are all the categories equally important, but for the most part I think this is a fair assessment. I don't think anybody cares about the character's eye colour or clothing style when assessing Mary Sues. Even if those items were historically linked with the term, they are pretty much irrelevant when used in today's context. If you want to argue semantics that is a different story, but the fact remains that Rey fulfills all the core principle elements of a Mary Sue.


Really. Han offers her a job literally 5 seconds after learning her name. He gives her a blaster, not out of self-preservation but because he is looking out for her. In the entire scene it is evident that he already likes her and is looking out for her as a father figure.

Stormtroopers are too stupid to fear anybody for the most part; they are pretty much cannon fodder. You are correct that Snoke didn't fear her, it's a shame that he has been removed from the series. Kylo begins to fear her pretty quickly...

Now is the fear "instant"? No, but close enough. Here you also see an example of her demonstrating her unearned OP abilities. Although she has great potential in the force, she is completely uninitiated at this point and should be easy prey for Kylo who should be significantly more advanced than her (as he trained under Luke AND Snoke; and has Skywalker lineage to boot!)


Firstly I would argue that this not really important in assessing a Mary Sue. That is not a core criteria in the way the term is used today. Also, the nature of Star Wars (family friendly series) pretty much makes this an impossibility



Snoke making her look the fool is about the closest thing she has to having a set back. Like I've said previously, Snoke was an intriguing character but he has been removed. Even then, the setback is inconsequential and short-lived. She loses nothing in the interaction and the situation quickly resolves itself (and not by her overcoming it as you suggest, and thank god for at least that)

Learning her parents were nobodies is perhaps an emotional setback, but it is not due to a failing or lack on her part. She has zero control over it. She didn't fail in that situation. Also as a side note, we don't actually even know this to be true. This is what Kylo is telling her. I could be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if the whole situation with her parents end up being something else entirely.

Han dying is hardly her failing as well. She wasn't involved in that scene other than to react to it. That was between Kylo and Han. It is Han's failing (or Kylo's, from a certain point of view *pun intended*)

Luke not training her is the worst example of them all. That is just a prime example of the dumpster fire that Rian Johnson turned Luke into. That is a failing of Luke not Rey. What's worse, it turns out that she doesn't even need Luke's training, she is perfectly fine without it (because of the supposed download from Kylo's mind during their mergers). She swings a lightsaber at some rocks and all of a sudden she is able to school Snokes elite guard.

Not one of these examples exhibit a true failure on her part with any real or lasting consequences.


The other characters that came before had to earn their abilities. Everything is just handed to her on a silver platter by the SJW writers.

Rey thinks up a solution on the spot to fix the Millennium Falcon that completely surprises Han. Han, who has spent most of his life time flying, fixing and modifying that ship. Nobody should know its systems better than him.

Rey also masters flying the Falcon within minutes of first stepping foot on it.

Rey (as you eluded to) masters the Jedi mind trick, without any training or experience. How did she even know about it, let alone know how to do it?

As for her lightsaber skills, she is gifted those pretty quickly as well. Her "training" in Ahch-To is a joke. She swings around her lightsaber aimlessly and we are meant to think this somehow constitutes as training. Luke in no way instructs or demonstrates its usage to her.


Kylo should still have been able to beat Rey. Even injured he should have been able to easily defeat her. She has no experience with the weapon or with the force. He has been trained by two masters (Luke and Snoke). He should have been able to cut her down in seconds. Not only that, but she was able to out use the force against Kylo by pulling the saber to her hand when he was trying to do the same. How did she learn to do that, and how did she surpass him so quickly?

Read the Darth Bane trilogy, there is a scene where Bane is wounded (far beyond that of of Kylo) and read how the Dark Side can be used to overcome such a predicament. Now Kylo is obviously no Darth Bane (nor is any of the Disney stuff anywhere close to the quality of the Darth Bane series) but the point still stands.


Obviously she can't stand up directly against the Prequel characters who have been trained since a young age by the greatest masters in the galaxy under a system that had been developed and honed for thousands of years. However, for her relative level of training/experience she is far above any of them. She masters things without training that would take them many years of study/practice to grasp. Her rate of learning is far superior to any of them (including Anakin).

As for her force abilities being underdeveloped, are you kidding me? She has no training and she is able to complete feats that are beyond trained users.

She is able to telekinetically overpower Kylo and draw the saber to her hand (without ever being trained to do so).

And then there is this little gem. Probably the worst example of her overpowered force abilities...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYxlpbbHhvI
Now compare and contrast this with Luke learning to do the same thing (with more training)...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Gen_qheOo
Notice the difference? She has less training than him and easily completes the task while he struggles and fails at lifting a few small rocks one at a time. Her lifting all those heavy giant stones is probably one of the greatest (if not the greatest) demonstration of that particular skill in the films, consider both the weight and number of the boulders she is manipulating (without even looking that concentrated or stressed). Even Yoda (with hundreds of years of training and experience) cannot preform the feat as easily. He has to concentrate when lifting the Xwing out of the swamp and also when preventing the column from crushing Anakin and Obi-wan after the Dooku fight.



Because the prequel characters have earned their abilities. Training, experience, guidance, failure coupled with learning... rinse and repeat across decades. There was an entire organization that had slowly developed proper training methods to develop such skills. Training classes, mentors, Masters, the Jedi library. I'm not sure how you can even equate the two.

Rey just gets it almost immediately without all the preparation and suffering that should come before it. We should all be so lucky, no need for schools, books, teachers, practice or coaches.

To which you replied:

Ok. To be honest I don't even see the point of arguing with that because I disagree in pretty much every point, starting with the definition and also the interpretations of the scenes AND the comparisons with the OT characters.
I don't see this going anywhere positive.

And from that you gather that I'm the one not facing the real arguments? I read your post and responded to your points with a thought out argument supported with evidence. You're the one that didn't have the courtesy to do the same.


In any event, it seems that we've reached an impasse. Not much more of a point to argue about it further. Move along in peace, or not, the choice is yours. The path of the Old Ones or the path of Chaos. The Light Side or the Dark Side.

 

[Aginor]

because it is your personal opinion of the word's meaning that is correct.

No because it leaves out important aspects of the real definition.

No thanks, I'll stick to the dictionary definition over the random articles you found

TVtropes and Wikipedia are way better than some random dictionary because they provide sources. So it is the other way round actually, they are the better sources.

Of course it doesn't, because you didn't ask it to. You have to include the word "definition" (or something similar). That's how Google (and search engines in general) works, it searches based on the keywords you provide it. I even included my search words in my original screenshot just to avoid such misunderstandings, but here it is again (highlighted this time for clarity)...

Don't tell me how to use search engines, I know how to do that.

So now we're (by which I mean you are) insulting another person's country? Although I could go down that route (and very easily at that), I won't and instead I'll let that blemish besmirch your record. And I'm the one nobody wants to debate with?

Read again. I accuse Google of thinking people in your country are dumb, I am not supporting that claim in any way.

The articles you are touting so proudly are wiki-esque articles. I wouldn't put too much faith in them. They are easily understood, but I can recognize that a person's opinion (which is what they are) can vary greatly from the actual meaning of the word as it is used in the today.

See above, wiki > random dictionary. Because sources.

The fact that you can't even comprehend that very obvious difference explains why we are in this current predicamen

I do understand, I just don't agree.

Just because things didn't unfold as you had planned, don't start playing the victim card. In any discussion involving a difference of thought/opinion there is an element of truth finding and an element of winning (as the goal is typically to win over your opponent to your side of the argument or to do so with those watching/listening/reading/attending etc). In the same breath, I am willing to move over to my opponent's side should they present me with an argument I can't refute. Don't try to paint me as this win at all costs evil debater who is squashing your noble endeavor to be an altruistic philosophical truth seeker. That simply isn't the case, on both our accounts.

Not the reason. And I am NOT playing any victim card. I am not your victim as nothing you can do hurts me in any way.

Arguments that were dismantled with logical argumentation and evidence (direct clips from the movies, etc.).

Except they weren't. I will probably post a few examples when I have time and fun doing so.

And from that you gather that I'm the one not facing the real arguments? I read your post and responded to your points with a thought out argument supported with evidence. You're the one that didn't have the courtesy to do the same.

I fail to see the evidence part. You posted your interpretations of scenes, mostly of points I had already explained my point of view of. The snarky and condescending way you reacted to them tells me that you don't even consider taking my interpretations into account so why should I do the same with yours?

I freely admit that I was angry about the way you acted, and I am sorry that I didn't conform to my own standards at that point.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

but I will say that I do agree with @Aginor a bit about the the way you sometimes phrase your arguments @NIGHTBRINGER. I don’t think that you only care about winning arguments, but the manner in which you present yours can occasionally make it seem that way.

I actually agree with you that this is a fair criticism. I don't shy away from trying to "win" a debate-style discussion. That said, I don't believe that winning is the sole reason (or even primary reason) to engage in such debates. However, it is a part of it, whether people care to admit to it or not.

Do I take it too far sometimes, possibly. I am human after all.

This is a Star Wars thread, so 99% of the time points are going to be inherently subjective - this Mary Sue debate among them.

I agree that there is a subjective element to all of this, however, there does seem to be more evidence supporting one side than the other. While it isn't a purely black and white issue, it's also true that we don't have a situation where it is purely opinion based either.

In my view, this means that while you are welcome to present arguments against other people’s views, at the end of the day, due to the topics subjective nature, they are under no obligation to change their opinions. We’ve had this discussion before on another thread, and I got the sense you agreed with me.

I completely agree with you. He is entitled to his opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. However, I'm also entitled to believe that his opinion is utterly incorrect (and he is entitled to feel the same about mine).

While all people are entitled to their opinions, not all opinions are necessarily valid. There are some massively flawed ideas floating out there in the world. Now if one wishes to assert that it is my opinions that are off base and invalid, that is fair game. I can take that and either refute it or rewrite my beliefs depending on the arguments presented to me.

Refuting, disagreeing, deconstructing and even ripping on an opinion is not the same as silencing it. I feel that everyone should be allowed to state their opinions and everyone has a right to state their opinions in response to it.

The way you use memes can be very condescending, especially to someone like @Aginor who has put time and effort into crafting a well thought out response.

The memes were not in response to a well crafted and thought out response by @Aginor . While it is true he did post a well crafted argument, I responded to that in kind. I acknowledged the points he made and I refuted them with my own arguments, which I supported with evidence. @Aginor then responded with a two sentence post. It is that two sentence blanket dismissal of my well crafted response that I countered with the memes.

It went something like this:
@Aginor : presents reasoned argument
@NIGHTBRINGER : presents reasoned counter-argument that refutes previous argument with supporting evidence
@Aginor : two sentence "I disagree with every point" statement
@NIGHTBRINGER : meme counter


I acknowledge that the memes are a bit snarky in nature, they are intended to be. However, they are not personally attacking him or his character, but rather simply the ideas he has thrown out there. They are ripping on the arguments and rationale that he has provided.

It is a habit of your’s to act like you have all the answers and what you say is always true - while yes, we are all guilty of this at one point or another (myself included), with you it does seem to be more prevalent than most.

That might be true to a degree. It is a stronger form of argumentation not to lead with statements like "I believe" or "I feel" (for instance, in an essay, you would be justifiably graded poorly for doing so, and I recognize this is not an essay... I use it merely as an example). That said, I am always happy to listen and respond to counter arguments. When those counter arguments overwhelm my arguments I rewrite my own belief structure.

I obviously don't have all the answers (unfortunately or I'd be even more insufferable ), but in each debate I would naturally feel I do have the answer or I wouldn't believe what I believe and I most certainly wouldn't try to convince anyone else of it. That said, when my "correct answers" are proven not to be correct, then I change them accordingly.

This is not meant to be an attack on you or your opinions, and I’m sorry if it comes across that way - that is not my intention.

Doesn't feel like an attack at all. While I don't agree with everything you have stated, I do feel you present some fair insights and that there are elements of truth to it.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

No because it leaves out important aspects of the real definition.

TVtropes and Wikipedia are way better than some random dictionary because they provide sources. So it is the other way round actually, they are the better sources.

See above, wiki > random dictionary. Because sources.

Wiki sources are most definitely not better. The editable nature of wiki means that it can never be considered as a trusted source. That is the reason why wiki sources cannot be cited in academic papers (at least papers beyond a high school level, and even in high school the kids are taught that they must include sources in addition to wiki ones). A dictionary definition on the other hand can be directly quoted and cited.

If a person were so inclined, they could go over and edit the wiki sources you provided to include Rey as the primary example of a Mary Sue. I'm not saying that wiki isn't useful; I use it myself. It is great for gathering large sums of data and more importantly lists the sources that you mentioned. However, those sources should not be conflated with the wiki article itself, the wiki is at best a random person's interpretation of the material presented in the sources and at worst a purposefully deceitful bit of "fun".

In any event, the current usage and definition of the term Mary Sue has deviated from the historical one. The meanings of words change over time and vary in terms of contextual use. As I said before, no one very few people consider things like exotic eye colour and clothing style when applying the term Mary Sue today.

Now, the dictionary definition I provided can be argued to be a bit over generalizing in scope, which is why I expanded upon it (though I didn't present that expansion has sourced data, but rather personal observation of how the word is used in the context we are discussing).

Don't tell me how to use search engines, I know how to do that.

Well you seemed surprised that searching "Mary Sue" didn't bring up the dictionary definition. I simply pointed out why. I'm not trying to be rude, but that is the way that search engines work.

Read again. I accuse Google of thinking people in your country are dumb, I am not supporting that claim in any way.

Yes, but Google isn't actually doing or claiming that and you know perfectly well that it isn't. There is no evidence supporting your claims of Google's intentions or actions. The statement is coming from you and you are trying to disguise it as coming from an alternate source.

It would be no different than me stating that I heard/read [insert arbitrary source] claim @Aginor likes beating little children (and NO I am not making that claim, just using it as an analogy) when in fact I did not hear/read such a thing. I'd be responsible for making that claim in that instance, but covering it up as someone else's.

That is a dirty and deceitful tactic. One which will both parties can easily play and will spiral out of control very quickly. It was your statement, and you have to take ownership of it.

Not the reason. And I am NOT playing any victim card. I am not your victim as nothing you can do hurts me in any way.

I freely admit that I was angry about the way you acted

That is contradictory. While it doesn't physically hurt you, by your own admission it made you angry. Anger is a response to being hurt in some way (physical, emotional, moral, etc). I'm not playing the tough guy, none of us are immune to it. Nor can it majorly hurt you or me. However, the fact that it angered you means that the victim card is viable and still in play. Playing the victim card can be a response to being angered by the words of another.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Honestly, I leave this thread for 5 minutes and look what happens - a real sh*tstorm is brewing here!

THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD NEVER LEAVE US UNSUPERVISED!!



As much as I love a good debate and can even take enjoyment from a slightly heated one, your interjection of a bit of levity in here was a welcome one. May the force be with you.

 

[Aginor]

No, it wasn't my statement and I already explained that it isn't. Stop calling me a liar.

Also Google is very well known for making results different for different countries. And I assume (without liking it) that Google does what I wrote otherwise I wouldn't have written it.


And no, being angry about how you tend to make arguments doesn't mean I am hurt. I am not a victim here. Stop calling me a liar.


And I obviously disagree about Wikis. They are not primary sources, but they can cite primary sources (which they do, otherwise I wouldn't have linked them). Which is why they are good starting point for research.

The definition by the dictionary is too oversimplified and IMO shouldn't be used. It is also highly subjective (unlike the original definition) so I don't wonder at all why people use it as a provocative term to apply to everything they don't like. To me that is completely unacceptable.

 

[Aginor]

But back to content, shall we?

I say Rey is a badass hero in a heroic setting.
Over the top? Yeah, probably.
But then we are talking about a franchise that has force projection, pulling Star Destroyers from orbit, and similar stuff. In that context I wouldn't call her overpowered.

How do you make the dichotomy between a badass hero and a Mary Sue/Marty Stu, based on that flawed definition?


The important thing IMO is: are powers justified within the setting?
We don't know yet because we don't know the whole story yet. So it is probably too early to say. But we know that something special awoke in Rey. We just don't know what it is yet.
As for her mechanical prowess: scavenging and mechanical work on star ships is what she has been doing for.. 15 years or so by the time the audience meets her. So her being good with that is completely natural to me.

Underwhelming force powers:
I have to re watch the movie but right now I cannot recall either her or Kylo pushing, throwing, choking, jumping, or moving with Force speed.
We see them pull and we see a mind trick. We also see Kylo stopping a blaster bolt. I call that underwhelming.

Kylo is far less capable in using the force than he would like everybody to think.
So ni, he shouldn't have easily defeated Rey while being in a mentally unstable state and wounded by Chewie's shot. He isn't a Sith Lord, he is an impostor.
He shares one important trait with Rey: He is strong, but he isn't properly trained.

As for the mind trick:
The scene before Rey attempts it we see Kylo trying to question her. She feels how to counter that mind trick and learns how to do it that way. Sure she learns it quickly, but when I saw the movie it made perfect sense to me, and it still does. Of course it works a lot better against a dumb Stormtrooper.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

No, it wasn't my statement and I already explained that it isn't. Stop calling me a liar.

I can't be certain what this is in relation to since you didn't quote anything specific from my post. I'd assume, based on your subsequent paragraph that you are referring to your Google comment, but I would rather not act on an assumption. For now, I'll pass.

Also Google is very well known for making results different for different countries. And I assume (without liking it) that Google does what I wrote otherwise I wouldn't have written it.

Once again your claims are unsubstantiated. By all means show me where/how Google has indicated that they feel Canada is a stupid country. You can deflect all you want, but that comment belongs to you and you alone. You took the pot shot against my country but lack the conviction to own up to it.

And no, being angry about how you tend to make arguments doesn't mean I am hurt. I am not a victim here. Stop calling me a liar.

Then don't play the victim card. Don't pass off your intentions as noble and mine as unscrupulous.

And I obviously disagree about Wikis. They are not primary sources, but they can cite primary sources (which they do, otherwise I wouldn't have linked them). Which is why they are good starting point for research.

I openly admitted that wikis can be a valuable resource (and admitted to using them myself). They are a good starting point for research. However, I understand their limitations. I would never cite a wiki source and hold it up as a gold standard.

The definition by the dictionary is too oversimplified and IMO shouldn't be used. It is also highly subjective (unlike the original definition) so I don't wonder at all why people use it as a provocative term to apply to everything they don't like. To me that is completely unacceptable.

Conversely, I believe that your definition is so specific that virtually no other characters could ever be considered a Mary Sue unless the author deliberately created them with that intention. That just isn't a useful interpretation of the definition and is not how it is used by just about everyone else (hence the dictionary definition).

 

[Aginor]

You took the pot shot against my country but lack the conviction to own up to it.

No, no and no.
I did certainly NOT insult your country. Not did I ever insult any other country, as that is against everything I believe in.
What I know is that Google's results in English speaking countries are sometimes quite different than the others. It probably is an American thing, (Canada being collateral damage) but there are numerous examples for that. I sometimes use a proxy to disguise as an American to see what English language Google does, and I have noticed very different results on numerous occasions. Thats why I do it, the results vary extremely in some cases and I want to know about it.
Mostly it is about product placement or placing other Google-driven services on top, something not allowed in the EU (And Google has been fined for it, IIRC even more than once) but sometimes it isn't. The Internet (and Google especially) is a lot less universal than many people think.

That's why I said it. I don't blame you for not knowing that but I can assure you that your insistence on me insulting Canada is unfounded and I'd politelt ask you to stop accusing me of that.

Then don't play the victim card. Don't pass off your intentions as noble and mine as unscrupulous.

For the last time, I don't. I have never called myself noble, nor have I called you unscroupulous. I just noticed your (usual) very aggressive style of argumentation and it bothered me a bit more than usually because it looked like you were not interested in a proper discussion. My assessment might have been wrong and I already apologized for that.


As for the common definition of Mary Sue among movie enthusiasts:
It isn't as narrow of a definition as you think.
You should read the linked sources and my first on topic post again if you think that is the case, because you might have gotten a wrong impression there.

One of the first things I mentioned is that there is no universally agreed on definition what does or does not contribute to being a Mary Sue.
Not all of the traits that are mentioned do have to apply at the same time or even at all.
Being a "Mary Sue" is not binary. It is a spectrum, and the traits are pointers as to how the definition might apply or not. There are perfectly good hero characters (I would even say: the majority of them) that have certain traits of Mary Sue/ Marty Stu / Gary Stu. Prime examples of so-called "Canon Sues" (Mary Sues that arent side characters) being Captain America, James T. Kirk or Bella from Twilight.
Rey definitely has some of them. But that doesn't necessarily make her a Mary Sue, especially since she has traits that are considered very uncommon for Mary Sues.

In the end we might learn that she is indeed some sort of Mary Sue, but right now the final verdict cannot be spoken yet, and there are some arguments against it.