Just like any other aspect of writing, Mary Sue-ism is something writers might want to learn about and think about when they construct plots and characters. Of course, there are degrees of Mary Sue-ism, ranging from hardly noticeable to VERY. What you can 'get away with' will depend on the kind of story you are writing, and your target readership. If you make your character overly skilled, unnaturally lucky, and universally loved (except by the baddies) and give this character an unrealistically easy time overcoming every difficulty he or she encounters, you will diminish the reader's sense of jeopardy. If you think your readership will enjoy an undemanding read like this ...fair enough. Obviously some people do. It's your choice. But it IS an aspect of story building that's worth keeping in mind. It's a new one for me (or relatively new) and one I didn't know about when I was writing my own novel. I think I escaped doing a Mary Sue, but I skated close a few times. Yikes. Now that I know about the concept, I'll certainly bear it in mind for when I write again.
Looks good! I'm sure the Optimus Prime diesel or fusion debate will someday replace the Deckard/replicant debate.
Yes yes, I heard it all before, "Michael Bay bad! Artsy movies good!" And yet, it seems 99.infinity percent of humanity prefers the former, seeing as they make billions, so I'll be over here with the unwashed masses who enjoy actual movies and all the people who unironically enjoyed MOTHER! can leave me be. And yes I saw MOTHER! too, and after my failed suicide attempt I promised myself I'd never see Jennifer Lawrence in anything other than an X-Men movie or a Hunger Games sequel again lol
Friend, I don't dislike Micheal Bay transformers movies because there's not enough art in them. I dislike them because they're shit movies.
Yes, yes, I understand let's divorce ourselves from objective measurements of what people actually care about, like success or failure in the eyes of the common man, whose memories and actual engagement defines culture and history. Let's all go watch some psychedelic French arthouse movie about people having sex on a Ferris wheel or whatever passes for "intellectual film making" today. *opens a Pabst*
Things that are bad: Making pretentious stories in order to garner easy critical acclaim Things that are also bad : Making shallow movies in order to garner easy theatrical success Creating a caricature of your opposition in regards to crappy robot movies to justify your love of them
Megan Fox had the character arc in the first film, and when the soldiers fought the small robot in the desert and had to call in an airstrike, I felt a combination of excitement and patriotism, which is what Bay was aiming for. Plus, the depictions of the main characters like Megatron and Optimus were just fine, and confirmed how I thought they would be. So I give it a thumbs up. I'd even call it art because it made me feel something.
Now okay, spinning things back to the original topic here--I think the critical difference between mary sues in fanfiction and mary sues (or something close to them) in professionally produced works is tone. A lot of fanfiction and amateur original works will expect you to be a hundred percent invested in a character, yet not put the slightest effort into making them or their interactions with their world some level of realistic and believable; compare that to the likes of James Bond, who gets away with a lot of stuff because people come in with the understanding that they're fun action movies that aren't exactly setting them up to make them cry. The "secret" to making a good (or tolerable, I suppose) "mary sue", I would think, is self-awareness. Know what you're making and whether or not your goofy self-indulgence is something the audience will think is fun too.
@XRD_author Sadly no, me and GF decided to see it mistaking it for some kind of horror movie...we were horrified, in retrospect, so props to Jennifer Lawrence. @Cirno I kinda also have to fall back on my original statement: Acharacter who is an impeccable superhuman with no flaws isn't necessarily a Mary Sue, because Superman and 90% of those "Golden Age" heroes were (Wonder Woman, Batman, Shazam, etc) but the entire UNIVERSE didn't revolve around them. They had lives and characters that existed independent of them. Such that Superman DIED and the universe he existed in went on largely unaffected. Meanwhile a Mary Sue has the entire setting literally revolve around them, case in point Ramona Flowers or Rey or whatever that bitch is from STD, her name escapes me. These are characters who literally have their entire setting built around them and the only time anyone acts is to either interact with them or be defeated by them. Full stop. They aren't just the main character they're the only relevant one. The example of Ramona Flowers, say, has this girl show up and literally convince a gaggle of thirsty AF men to literally fight with each other in the streets in death battles to have sex with her...and we're never given ANY reason why or any logical explanation as to what they find so hot about her other than "she's the main heroine". Yeah right, heroine...the E is there as an accent. Mary Sues also almost exclusively are either ego-stroking author inserts, or political set pieces. And neither of these things are bad IN AND OF THEMSELVES but when tethered to some kind of inane, one-note character with impenetrable plot armor it becomes grating at best and disgusting at worst. Carol Danvers, in the MCU, is the perfect example of this, archetypal example honestly. She's literally just a political set piece with no characterization, portrayed as implausibly powerful despite all she does is fly around and zap things (because obviously Iron Man, Vision, Scarlet Witch, War Machine and Dr. Strange can't do that?) and her entire backstory completely wrecks the canon of the MCU and the origins of the Tesseract for literally NO OTHER REASON than to show Brie Larson's impossibly flat chest for a couple hours...while...she...reads...her...lines...slowly. Academy award winning actress, ladies and gents. And for the author insert archetype, again, look to Wesley Crusher. On TV tropes this used to literally be called "The Wesley" before the term Mary Sue became more broadly used, since the entire idea was, originally, it was almost exclusively an author insert character who was portrayed as being impossibly perfect, smart, cool and suave with no flaws and the entire plot revolving around them. Eventually Mary Sue became the more common term, probably because the political set piece archetype became more prevalent than the author insert variety...and to be honest I don't know which is worse.
And to be clear, a character being a political set piece isn't, inherently, bad. However in the modern era, say the last decade or so, we have seen the concept of a basic political set piece character devolve into what I can only describe as a soap box with a speaking roll. Again, Carol Danvers is the perfect example of this. The entire marketing and the basic premise of the movie was basically about how Carol is some kind of uber mensch with no flaws and no genuine logic as to why. The "logic" of the movie, such as it is, was that Carol is an M-powered whamen who don't need no man *z-snaps* with no further characterization and the plot existed purely to stroke that feminist boner (ew!) and neither she nor the movie meant anything. Because in the end nothing was genuinely changed by her presence in Endgame, she has no greater power than any character previously introduced, and they actively raped the canon just to make her fit and to have a joke about the Tesseract despite the fact that this "new" canon basically changes the plot of previous movies. And any criticism of her is brushed off with impotent screeching about SEXIST! ABLEIST! RACIST! XENOPHOBE! REEEEEE! That's a Mary Sue.
Is this truly possible, though? Can anyone think of a character they like that they'd still call a Sue? Sues being regarded as insufferable is remarkably consistent from the term's origins in fanfiction through the traditional "character who-doesn't-have-to-struggle" to the myriad modern usages. I can't say for certain, but I'm pretty sure any accusations of sexism flying your way have more to do with specific criticisms like: rather than general criticism of the character itself.
@X Equestris I wasn't talking about me. I decided not to see the movie after the first trailer and never spoke of it until AFTER the shitstorm started, and even then I was never personally called a "Sexist". HOWEVER you and I both know that literally the entire marketing for the movie was basically that anyone who disagreed with the "plot" (using the term loosely) was somehow a sexist, and the MAIN ACTRESS openly said she, quote, "doesn't want White men" to watch the movie. And considering the cratering ticket sales which even Disney admitted they rigged using purchased seats, looks like she got her wish. Not that things like facts or logic will ever sway the Left from their complete, nonsensical fixation on being woke when literally everyone else has said that they don't want politics AT ALL let alone open, blatant politics in their entertainment. But you're skipping over the point: the fact is that political set piece characters, almost exclusively Left leaning in recent years, have taken the mantle of the new Mary Sue standard over Wesley Crusherian author inserts. I can only speculate as to why they're all almost exclusively SJW tumors, but regardless the modern Mary Sue or Gary Stu archetype is effectively a plot device meant to further a political stance, surrounded by plot armor and supported by pseudo-intellectual grandstanding that gives anyone with an IQ above two digits the idea the author just wanted to "say something" not tell a story. So the entire story revolves around them, and more to the point, every other character arcs invariably towards them with no one having any life or concept or backstory outside of their relationship to the Mary Sue and anyone who even attempts to question them (IRL or in-universe) being portrayed as ignorant at best and evil more often. The heart of this is the same with the Crusher-style author insert, being that the author wants to stroke their dick but has nary the beginnings of a hint of a sub-atomic particle of how to do so without wrecking the story so they upend the story and keep on trucking without realizing how unreadable, unwatchable and unbearable their patched together Frankenstein's monster of ego, ignorance and political avatars truly looks to outsiders. The fact that SJWs now rule the media is why the political set piece masturbation Mary Sue has replaced the author insert masturbation Mary Sue. And as I said, I genuinely have no idea which I detest most. I guess if forced to choose, the author insert Mary Sue makes my skin crawl far, far more because simply because of how unsubtle it is. But the fact an entire generation has become fixated on making EVERY female character or EVERY gay character or EVERY Black character into the Son of God (or I guess the Non-Binary They/Them Pronoun Oppressed Minority Bastard Child of God?) has more than made me and most of the rest of humanity glad the Current Year is approaching an end. Hopefully the ending looks something like the movie "2012" and concludes with California being obliterated by a geothermal cataclysm.
Sure, but you probably don't find the character you're calling a Sue likeable, right? And the people who like that character probably don't consider them a Sue. That's what I was getting at regarding talk about a good/tolerable Sue. Every time I see somebody call a character a Sue, that person just loathes the character in question. I've never seen somebody say they both liked a character and consider that character a Sue.
@BayView Sure, give me a sec. Her specific words, by the by, was that she felt "too many" White men were reviewing her movie and she blamed them for the shitty reaction, PRIOR to release, as opposed to simply accepting the public doesn't want to watch a tree pretend to look mean...unless it's Groot.
@BayView Example one: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/brie-larson-doesnt-want-you-reviewing-her-superhero-movie-white-males Example two: https://variety.com/video/brie-larson-crystal-lucy-awards-critics/ Example three: https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/1094391/Captain-Marvel-backlash-trolls-review-bomb-Brie-Larson-response-interview Example four: https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/film/brie-larson-is-sick-of-being-interviewed-by-white-dudes-1.3792529 I couldn't fine the original quote, per se, but I figure that's enough.
@X Equestris Untrue, sorry. There is a defined standard for what a Mary Sue is, or a Gary Stu, the fact that some people like them doesn't change this. I for example like the character Daria, mainly because I find her attractive and funny, but she's a Mary Sue. She's untouchable, she's unquestionable, everyone who attempts to question her or stand up to her sarcasm is portrayed as insane, stupid, vapid, evil or all of the above and her only defining character trait is that she's "smarter" than everyone else and preaches the creators' beliefs. But I still like her. I also still can admit she's a Mary Sue. Likewise, I honestly can't stand Superman, but I would never call him a Mary Sue because he has none of the qualities of one. He's impeccable and untouchable yes but he's not unquestionable, he's not always right, he's not the only important character, and other characters exist around him and have lives without him without Superman being the sole reason for their existence. I think he's horribly written and stupidly thrown together, a figment of a long-dead era of comics, but the reality is that he's never been a Mary Sue. Just a poorly written character.
I'm not sure you can say the public doesn't want to watch it when it's performed so well so far. https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2019/03/21/captain-marvel-powering-to-900-million-on-third-weekend/#3533b572bc69 Weren't you all about "Damn the critics, box office returns above all" earlier?
Man, you don't seem to know much about the history of Marvel comics and political commentary. Its always been that way. But you do seem to know how simultaneously make it sound like you are above the politicking while spicing your language with misogynistic crap like "flat chest" and "that bitch". No, she didn't. She said that she didn't want the press junket to ONLY include white men. How do you get that so backwards in your head? All those "bitches" really getting to you?
