Discussion about Self-Insert Characters in Fiction (Mary Sue/Gary Stu)

[twistedmic]

something i just thought about is that poe is has all the same traits as a mary sue. dashing, overly talented for his age, everyone loves him, he can generally do anything he wants without repercussions and get away with it

My thoughts exactly. Poe shoots down ten TIEs and a handful of Stormtroopers in the span of fifteen to twenty seconds in his X-Wing, can easily and expertly fly a Special Forces TIE (despite having no reason to be able to fly one), is a crack shot, and is generally flawless all throughoutThe Force Awakens yet has not gotten even close to a fraction of the hate and criticism that all four main female characters (Holdo, Lei, Rey and Rose) have received.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Yep, those 'anti-SJWs' are affronted. Females lead have to be perfected (oxymoronically by not being perfect and thus labelled as Mary Sue) or these guys are just triggered all over the place. Remember when Miles Morales was seen as evil diversity hire by these guys? Now he's getting his own movie.

And this doesn't stop Rey from being a potential Mary Sue. It's a great way to analysis and comment on a character. Also, notice those quotation marks around 'anti-SJW'? They're there because these guys are just SJWs fighting for causes like all Male leads, that are definitely straight. Claiming they aren't fighting for Social Justice (as they see it in their eyes) is silly.

Thank you for make stuff up to put into my mouth. Being against social justice doesn't mean one is against female characters and your examples were terrible. The solution to bad female characters isn't male characters, it's GOOD female characters.

Game of Thrones has amazing female characters. Brienne of Tarth and Cersei spring to mind. These are deep, complex characters that make sense in context, have flaws and weaknesses and faced adversity to come out stronger for it. Brienne has a complex relationship with Jamie Lannister for example because of a shared adventure and an oath she made. Cersei rules the Seven Kingdoms through guile, cunning and ruthlessness, outsmarting and outplaying everyone else without ever so much as touching a sword. They have arcs that develop them as characters over time.

Ghostbusters 16 was a bad film, but the issue was (and still is) that the stars/makers are still blaming its failure on sexism, when it's not because of sexism. It's because it's rubbish. No one, women included, wants to watch those four actresses riff off each other aimlessly for two hours with crap VFX.

Rey is a shallow, one-dimensional, flawless hero whose role in events makes no sense, mostly because the plot is so bad. She's the same at the beginning as she is at the end. Wonder Woman is *not* a Mary Sue, she is a naive and flawed character with the powers of a God, the heart of a hero and no clue how to carry a sword while wearing a dress. She actively rebels against her Queen, putting herself and her home at risk because of what she feels she has to do. Wonder Woman was 100x better than the travesty that was Snyder's Man of Steel. I'm not going to address the rest of your post because it's just nonsense.

The issue with bad female characters is not the "female" part, it's the "bad" part. The issue with Rey is not that she's a she but that she's awful, a shallow Mary Sue that has the unenviable task of carrying a badly written, nonsensical film.

PS. Oceans 8 was almost a beat for beat, in many cases shot for shot, recreation of Oceans 11, and it still flopped. Why? I'm sure you'll blame it on sexism, instead of unimaginative Hollywood studios remaking stuff we've already seen, only now with social justice added in. The real reasons are the same as GB2016: we already have the original, didn't need or want the remake and the remake just isn't as good. Even women would rather watch George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Matt Damon in Oceans 11, than women in Oceans 8. But nope, sexism, much easier.

This interviewer sums up just how tone deaf people are. "What took so long?" Seriously. Because there haven't been fantastic female characters before this movie that was already done before and better only with men in it? Maybe if they made an original movie instead of remaking stuff but now with "diversity", they wouldn't waste so much money.

 

[Hawki]

I'm sure you'll blame it on sexism, instead of unimaginative Hollywood studios remaking stuff we've already seen, only now with social justice added in. The real reasons are the same as GB2016:

WHere did either film deal with themes/issues of social jusice?

 

[Agema]

The issue with bad female characters is not the "female" part, it's the "bad" part. The issue with Rey is not that she's a she but that she's awful, a shallow Mary Sue that has the unenviable task of carrying a badly written, nonsensical film.

I only wish you could stick to your own stance, because you seem to want to have your cake and eat it. You want to say that what matters is plot and characterisation, in which case "diversity" and "social justice" is neither here nor there. Yet you want to complain about them a great deal.

Maybe if they made an original movie instead of remaking stuff but now with "diversity",

They're remaking huge amounts of stuff all the time. Some have diversity, most do not. It strikes me there are extra-special efforts that seem to go into internet raging against "diverse" remakes where the usual lazy remakes just drift by in a fog of disinterest.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I only wish you could stick to your own stance, because you seem to want to have your cake and eat it. You want to say that what matters is plot and characterisation, in which case "diversity" and "social justice" is neither here nor there. Yet you want to complain about them a great deal.

Why do you believe them to be mutually exclusive? One is a result of the other. The plot and characterisation are crap and one of the major reasons is because the film put social justice ahead of good plotting, pacing and characterisation. They are inexorably tied together. Story, characters, plot, pacing, TLJ got it all wrong; the list of issues with TLJ is long and already discussed to death on every web forum out there.

Where did either film deal with themes/issues of social jusice?

Not a theme, the casting. They got gender flipped. The selling point was "all female cast" and that's the reason they're blaming both films' failures on sexism instead of being crap.

 

[Asita]

something i just thought about is that poe is has all the same traits as a mary sue. dashing, overly talented for his age, everyone loves him, he can generally do anything he wants without repercussions and get away with it

except in the second movie where, as a rank and file pilot, he isn't allowed to break rank and command the entire rebel fleet and not everyone loves him

and in that movie we blame the lady with pink hair for not allowing poe to sue it up

Except...very little of that is true. As far as I'm aware, nobody here has held Rey's age as a mark against her. It's Anakin's age that has been frequently cited as improbable (with good reason, I might add). To Poe himself, he's a 32 year old Wing Commander. Nothing in that statement is improbable. For illustrative purposes, a quick search revealed the following listing RAAF Wing Commanders who died during WWII, and includes their age at death. The youngest was 23, the oldest 36, the mean average at death was 28.36. Reminder: that's age at death for RAAF Wing Commanders who died in WWII, not the age at which they achieved the rank.

As to Holdo, it's less that she doesn't let Poe break the chain of command, but that the plot line is basically set up like an unfair mystery, wherein the culprit can't be identified before the reveal because the relevant clue was withheld from the audience until that same reveal. Holdo as presented to Poe and the audience gave no indications of a plan outside of "keep flying until we run out of fuel", framing her as an ineffectual leader. Given the information available (at the time) to the audience and the characters, relieving such an officer from duty is at least justifiable.

This, however, ultimately leads to the revelation of the unspoken and unalluded to plan which is in turn supposed to be a lesson in humility and against rashness for Poe (and the audience)...except the fact that even the existence of a plan beyond "keep flying for as long as we can" was unknown turns the lesson instead into "have blind faith in your commanding officer even when they appear to be acting contrary to public interest". It's a botched lesson that unintentionally makes Poe more sympathetic and Holdo less sympathetic.

 

[Hawki]

Not a theme, the casting. They got gender flipped. The selling point was "all female cast" and that's the reason they're blaming both films' failures on sexism instead of being crap.

I don't recall ever film using their casts in of itself as a selling point, neither in the film nor in the marketing for the films.

Also wouldn't use "crap" to describe either of them (Ghostbusters was good, Ocean's 8 was okay), but that's beside the point.

 

[Agema]

Why do you believe them to be mutually exclusive? One is a result of the other. The plot and characterisation are crap and one of the major reasons is because the film put social justice ahead of good plotting, pacing and characterisation. They are inexorably tied together. Story, characters, plot, pacing, TLJ got it all wrong; the list of issues with TLJ is long and already discussed to death on every web forum out there.

No, it's just a film with (in your view) mediocre plotting, pacing and characterisation that pursues a diversity agenda. There's no evidence whatsoever that these things were sacrificed for "social justice", rather than just not being that good in and of themselves.

The critics didn't have that much of a problem with it - not stellar, but definitely good. Nor, broadly, did audiences as it has a strong overall approval rating. It's just a bunch of fanboys upset because they didn't like the way the creators treated Luke (or whatever), and a bunch of oversensitive, angry, white men upset because white men aren't the focus. They have magicked up for themselves a critique of the movie that matters not the slightest fuck to everyone else on the planet who just went to see a science fiction action movie and mostly enjoyed it fine.

I mean, shit, I don't think the reception TFA or TLJ received is a patch on the raw shock that rippled through Star Wars fan community at just how weak The Phantom Menace was. I'm pretty sure half the internet whiners around now either don't remember (maybe too young at the time) or are glossing over it for convenience. It's a far worse film than TFA or TLJ - except for some fanboys and angry white men - but I don't see anyone claiming it sacrificed X,Y or Z for "social justice" or some other hoodoo. It's just not a good film. There's only one reason anyone has a problem with the new movies over "social justice", and that's the oversensitive anti-SJ warriors.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

but I don't see anyone claiming it sacrificed X,Y or Z for "social justice"

Because it didn't.

It's just a bunch of fanboys upset because they didn't like the way the creators treated Luke (or whatever), and a bunch of oversensitive, angry, white men upset because white men aren't the focus.

It's a far worse film than TFA or TLJ - except for some fanboys and angry white men

Shameful, absolutely horrific. I won't engage you any further.

 

[Agema]

Shameful, absolutely horrific. I won't engage you any further.

I'm amazed you can be that horrified by the notion that The Phantom Menace is the nadir of the Star Wars film universe. Well, maybe some might put Attack of the Clones at the bottom instead.

I remember fondly the first episode of season two of Spaced, where Tim Bisley has to deal with the psychological fall-out of having seen The Phantom Menace, slipping into depression and burning his Star Wars merchandise. It's a feeling just about everyone who saw and loved the original Star Wars in the 1970s/80s can sympathise with to at least some degree.

The fact that a few quarters of the internet are now making an awful lot of noise doesn't disguise the fact that they are a relatively small proportion of the general populace and have certain very specific angles on the new installments that just don't matter to most people.

 

[Hawki]

I'm amazed you can be that horrified by the notion that The Phantom Menace is the nadir of the Star Wars film universe. Well, maybe some might put Attack of the Clones at the bottom instead.

I'd technically put The Clone Wars (the movie) at the bottom, or heck, the ewok films/cartoon. But if we're viewing the prequels in the context of Star Wars as a whole, they're hardly a nadir, considering that whatever their quality, they at least provided a solid template for worldbuilding - something that the sequels haven't done.

Also, I'm pretty sure he's referring to your "angry white men" slur. Which...isn't the most constructive terminology, I'll put it that way. There's plenty of reasons to dislike TFA and TLJ aside from supposed "social justice." Heck, I'm quite negative towards TFA myself, even if I like TLJ.

 

[Agema]

Also, I'm pretty sure he's referring to your "angry white men" slur. Which...isn't the most constructive terminology, I'll put it that way.

I know that: it's just my wry sense of humour to pretend otherwise. More seriously, it's not like there's much delicacy or consideration in the way he wants to talk about "social justice" advocates through the threads, and if he can't stand the heat he's doing the right thing to stay out of the kitchen.

It is not logical to claim that TLJ has bad characterisation, plot, pacing etc. because of "social justice" when the Star Wars universe has patently worse films with no apparent excuse. There's no adequate rationale supplied for why the writers deliberately made the film inferior just so they could shoehorn in their political morality. This being the case, a reasonable conclusion is that some people resent "social justice", and the rest is psychological rationalisation.

Never mind that the prior two trilogies are kind of left wing anyway. The Empire is obviously a playground for white male elites resisted by a multi-race and multi-gender rebellion. (Some of the books are explicit that the Empire is a racist state.) Pre-empire, Palpatine and buddies say things pretty much straight out of the mouth of the GWB administration, and the heroes start off fighting some evil capitalists. But I guess that wasn't so big a deal as long as the white bad guys were primarily resisted by good white guys.

I'm not going to say I don't have complaints about the new movies either - they have plenty of limitations. But long and short, as Hollywood action blockbusters go, they're better than average. However, many complainers are inserting themselves into the criticism: by which I mean too many arguments approximate to "I don't like this" rather than "This is objectively flawed". Where they have objective criticisms, contextually the new Star Wars films fare perfectly well compared to other Hollywood blockbusters - and in many cases supercede their forebears.

Rational criticism, fine. Screaming "this is a heap of shit!!! [because feminists] [because I wish Luke hadn't become a hermit]"... neh, sorry.

 

[Hawki]

I've changed the title to reflect that this thread is now a discussion about self-insert characters. Do not make more threads about the subject elsewhere. Thank you.

Seriously?

You can easily discuss Kerrigan and Rey in isolation from each other.

Never mind that the prior two trilogies are kind of left wing anyway. The Empire is obviously a playground for white male elites resisted by a multi-race and multi-gender rebellion. (Some of the books are explicit that the Empire is a racist state.) Pre-empire, Palpatine and buddies say things pretty much straight out of the mouth of the GWB administration, and the heroes start off fighting some evil capitalists. But I guess that wasn't so big a deal as long as the white bad guys were primarily resisted by good white guys.

Pretty much everything's left wing from the Nazis, so that isn't saying much. Also, on the subject of race, the Empire had prejudicial policies against aliens, but I don't think there's much to read into with the concept of race within humans in the setting. I don't recall race ever being brought up within a Star Wars species, only between them. So, in the OT, I don't think the ethnic/gender makeup really means much. Similarly, I don't think it means much to the sequel trilogy either.

Also, the Empire are space fascists. If you want "evil capitalists," the Trade Federation is the better example.

I'm not going to say I don't have complaints about the new movies either - they have plenty of limitations. But long and short, as Hollywood action blockbusters go, they're better than average. However, many complainers are inserting themselves into the criticism: by which I mean too many arguments approximate to "I don't like this" rather than "This is objectively flawed". Where they have objective criticisms, contextually the new Star Wars films fare perfectly well compared to other Hollywood blockbusters - and in many cases supercede their forebears.

I dunno. The films have been pretty average for me.

TFA is fine, but it's really weighed down by its reliance on A New Hope. Rogue One is an absolute mess that's only saved by its third act. The Last Jedi is the best of the bunch, but it's compounded by its high highs being offset by low lows. Solo is a fun space romp that's content with being nothing more than a fun space romp.

Course that's just a very abridged form of my opinion, but while I think the whole "these films are bad of social justice" idea is asinine, there's plenty of reasons to dislike the films for other reasons IMO. That, and for better or worse, each film has generally shared its own strengths and weaknesses. And if we're comparing them to the prequels, while none of them have reached the drek of Attack of the Clones, none of them have reached the heights of Revenge of the Sith either. They're just average.

 

[Terminal Blue]

something i just thought about is that poe is has all the same traits as a mary sue. dashing, overly talented for his age, everyone loves him, he can generally do anything he wants without repercussions and get away with it

except in the second movie where, as a rank and file pilot, he isn't allowed to break rank and command the entire rebel fleet and not everyone loves him

and in that movie we blame the lady with pink hair for not allowing poe to sue it up

Exactly. That immediately struck me too.

I mean, conventionally speaking none of these characters are Mary Sues, because they aren't author-inserts, but in terms of who fans seem to have wound up identifying with Poe is right up there.

Rey is an identifiable character primarily for children and particularly for young girls, for whom the Disney movies are their first introduction to Star Wars. Part of her role is to make the films more welcoming to girls who would otherwise be turned off by a shooty spaceship film. She featured heavily in the Forces of Destiny doll line, which was also aimed at girls (and which was IMO deeply mishandled and only served to reinforce that Disney don't really get how to do character dolls). Because of her narrative role, her motivations and characterization need to be relatively simple in order to be understandable to a child. For example, a child can understand how difficult it must be to be without parents, and thus having a character be an orphan is a good way to grab their sympathy. However, Rey's inner conflicts actually have very high stakes, and she's flawed in ways the audience is allowed to see. For much of the Force Awakens, she simply wants to go home and wait for her parents, which is directly in conflict with what the audience wants and thus the audience will immediately realise that she is wrong a long time before she does.

Poe is an identifiable character for the kind of adult men who get angry about stuff on the internet. He's super cool, he's the best pilot ever, and all the main characters think he's great, he's hot but not in a female-gazey way, he takes risks, he drives the plot. The difference is that Poe is flawed in ways the audience can't initially see (or, more likely, didn't want to see). I think the people who made the film assumed that we'd pick up on this and go with it, after all, by the end his actions have ultimately resulted in the deaths of most of the resistance, and yet a significant proportion of the viewers seem to have interpreted that thing as Holdo being in the wrong, or are confused that didn't explain her plan which relies on secrecy and deception to the unreliable hothead who doesn't seem to care about sacrificing human life and might perhaps see the loss of military assets in exchange for those lives to be a poor trade. As an audience, we know that Poe ultimately isn't a bad dude and will see the wisdom of the plan, but Holdo doesn't. So really, what people seem to be upset about in that film is that a character (who happens to be a woman) didn't immediately feel trust and respect for another character they have no reason to (and who happens to be male) because the audience likes him.

That is a million, million times closer to Sue-dom than anything involving Rey ever.

 

[Something Amyss]

It is not logical to claim that TLJ has bad characterisation, plot, pacing etc. because of "social justice" when the Star Wars universe has patently worse films with no apparent excuse.

And when Episode VII is essentially a remake of IV. And when the movies have always had weak characterisation and plot. I'd argue against "pacing" being a real complaint, but whatever.

Never mind that the prior two trilogies are kind of left wing anyway.

And repeatedly mentioned by Lucas in various interviews on both trilogies and his influences.

Rational criticism, fine. Screaming "this is a heap of shit!!! [because feminists] [because I wish Luke hadn't become a hermit]"... neh, sorry.

Screaming the minute a black guy in a Stormtrooper outfits appears in the trailer, to boot.

Because let's be honest: the complaints didn't start with the Last Jedi. It didn't Start with the Force Awakens. It didn't even start with the first full trailer. It was that first teaser and black guy that started the uproar.

 

[Agema]

Because let's be honest: the complaints didn't start with the Last Jedi. It didn't Start with the Force Awakens. It didn't even start with the first full trailer. It was that first teaser and black guy that started the uproar.

Absolutely. "But... one of the leads is a black person. HOW DARE YOU SHOVE SOCIAL JUSTICE DOWN OUR THROATS!"

Because that is approximately all a fair chunk of them need to be triggered. There's a couple of offhand jibes directed at excessive machismo, a woman who can fight, and IT'S SOCIAL JUSTICE GONE MAD. Of course, those of them who realise at some level that their case isn't very good (or just don't want to seem too obvious) instead take the route of being hypercritical, and just try to be as deliberately negative as possible on pseudo-objective grounds. Good is presented as okay, okay is presented as abysmal - anything as long as it damages what they don't like.

One might point out the irony that as a group they have become the worst of what they used to complain about: the minority activist types who constantly complain about anything and everything for not ticking the boxes they want ticked. Ah well, gaze long enough into the abyss and the abyss gazes back into you, as the saying goes.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I've changed the title to reflect that this thread is now a discussion about self-insert characters. Do not make more threads about the subject elsewhere. Thank you.

Seriously?

You can easily discuss Kerrigan and Rey in isolation from each other.

Pretty sure this was done because there were 3 very similar ?Mary Sue? threads active at the same time. Redundancy is redundant.

 

[the December King]

Absolutely. "But... one of the leads is a black person. HOW DARE YOU SHOVE SOCIAL JUSTICE DOWN OUR THROATS!"

I gotta admit that I was initially surprised that there was a black Stormtrooper... though, really, my surprise was that there was a non-clone Stormtrooper - but once I realized that the forces needed to be supplemented after time with more traditional means of militarization as the empire expanded, I was cool with it.

Though, what happened to the cloning planet... uh, Kamino? Was it destroyed, or was knowledge of it hidden?

 

[CaitSeith]

I'll just leave this here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2-GIY9RTqU