logo Sign In

Ranking the Star Wars films — Page 112

Author
Time

MaximRecoil said:

Haarspalter said:

MaximRecoil said:

DominicCobb said:

Rey’s marksmanship is a perfect example of the sexist bullshit that is the Mary Sue argument. Think how common it is in movies (not just Star Wars) that a guy picks up a gun for the first time and his aim and ability is never questioned. Yet they go out of their way to show that Rey isn’t perfect with a blaster but people call it out anyway.

Name some examples. I want examples where it is established that the character has never fired a gun before, and takes place in a story where a similar established character misses a lot, even though it shows that he already owns a gun.

f

f

Ellen Ripley isn’t an example.

f

Rogue One is redundant. Just play the first mission of DARK FORCES.
The hallmark of a corrupt leader: Being surrounded by yes men.
‘The best visual effects in the world will not compensate for a story told badly.’ - V.E.S.
‘Star Wars is a buffet, enjoy the stuff you want, and leave the rest.’ - SilverWook

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Person A: [uses outdated misogynistic term]

Your “misogynistic” assertion has already been confuted, which negates the rest of your post.

Author
Time

MaximRecoil said:

yhwx said:
Well, you cited Wikipedia…

And yes, before you “well actually” me, I know there are rules on Wikipedia, but an unmaintained Wikipedia page can have tons of misinformation on it.

Comparing Wikipedia to Urban Dictionary is utterly absurd, and you trying to hang a lampshade on it doesn’t negate the absurdity. The “Mary Sue” Wikipedia entry isn’t even remotely obscure/unmaintained. Just look at its lengthy “talk” page. Also, the parts I’ve quoted have citations, which are the actual sources.

Okay, I guess. But the fact that Wikipedia editors are overwhelmingly male (by its own self-admission) probably doesn’t help that article out.

Author
Time

MaximRecoil said:

TV’s Frink said:

Person A: [uses outdated misogynistic term]

Your “misogynistic” assertion has already been confuted, which negates the rest of your post.

You’re dismissed.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

MaximRecoil said:

Your mere gainsaying is dismissed.

Sorry again Possessed, now I think Impscum, Twooffour, and this guy are all actually the same guy.

Your crystal ball is in need of repair. I’ve been “MaximRecoil”, and only “MaximRecoil”, on every forum I’ve ever posted on since 2000 when I first started using the internet.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

MaximRecoil said:

TV’s Frink said:

MaximRecoil said:

Your mere gainsaying is dismissed.

Sorry again Possessed, now I think Impscum, Twooffour, and this guy are all actually the same guy.

Your crystal ball is in need of repair. I’ve been “MaximRecoil”, and only “MaximRecoil”, on every forum I’ve ever posted on since 2000 when I first started using the internet.

Ya’ ever heard that saying that every joke has a bit of truth to it?

Author
Time

Haarspalter said:

MaximRecoil said:

Haarspalter said:

MaximRecoil said:

DominicCobb said:

Rey’s marksmanship is a perfect example of the sexist bullshit that is the Mary Sue argument. Think how common it is in movies (not just Star Wars) that a guy picks up a gun for the first time and his aim and ability is never questioned. Yet they go out of their way to show that Rey isn’t perfect with a blaster but people call it out anyway.

Name some examples. I want examples where it is established that the character has never fired a gun before, and takes place in a story where a similar established character misses a lot, even though it shows that he already owns a gun.

f

f

Ellen Ripley isn’t an example.

f

Because you didn’t point out a scene which established that Ripley had never fired a gun prior to the first time we see her fire one, for starters.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

yhwx said:

MaximRecoil said:

yhwx said:
Well, you cited Wikipedia…

And yes, before you “well actually” me, I know there are rules on Wikipedia, but an unmaintained Wikipedia page can have tons of misinformation on it.

Comparing Wikipedia to Urban Dictionary is utterly absurd, and you trying to hang a lampshade on it doesn’t negate the absurdity. The “Mary Sue” Wikipedia entry isn’t even remotely obscure/unmaintained. Just look at its lengthy “talk” page. Also, the parts I’ve quoted have citations, which are the actual sources.

Okay, I guess. But the fact that Wikipedia editors are overwhelmingly male (by its own self-admission) probably doesn’t help that article out.

You don’t think that the members of this forum, you know, the ones arguing that “Mary Sue” is a misogynistic term, are overwhelmingly male too? The difference is, baseless assertions don’t cut the mustard on Wikipedia. Also, that summary of the definition of Mary Sue in the opening paragraph is sourced, with the primary source being:

http://fmwriters.com/Visionback/Issue30/marysue.htm

Many of us have heard the term “Mary Sue” floating around writing communities. A Mary Sue is a character that the author identifies with so strongly that the story is warped by it. Sometimes male Sues are called “Gary Stus,” but more often the name is used for both sexes of offenders. The term was coined in fanfiction, made its way from there into the publishing world, and has slowly been filtering into the writing community as a useful shorthand for a frighteningly common error in characterization.

The author is named “Kat Feete” (female name). The other source given is:

http://www.springhole.net/writing/whatisamarysue.htm

Even if we assign some level of credence to your out-of-left-field conspiracy theory, what do those sources have to do with Wikipedia editors?

Author
Time

MaximRecoil said:

Haarspalter said:

MaximRecoil said:

Haarspalter said:

MaximRecoil said:

DominicCobb said:

Rey’s marksmanship is a perfect example of the sexist bullshit that is the Mary Sue argument. Think how common it is in movies (not just Star Wars) that a guy picks up a gun for the first time and his aim and ability is never questioned. Yet they go out of their way to show that Rey isn’t perfect with a blaster but people call it out anyway.

Name some examples. I want examples where it is established that the character has never fired a gun before, and takes place in a story where a similar established character misses a lot, even though it shows that he already owns a gun.

f

f

Ellen Ripley isn’t an example.

f

Because you didn’t point out a scene which established that Ripley had never fired a gun prior to the first time we see her fire one, for starters.

How about her? She never used an axe before.

f

[Rose is about to cut Jack free with an axe]

Jack: Wait, wait, wait! Take a couple practice swings over there.

[Rose chops a hole in a cupboard door]

Jack: Good! Now try and hit the same mark again, Rose. You can do it!

[Rose chops again, missing the first hole by about 3 feet]

Jack: Okay, that’s enough practice.

Rogue One is redundant. Just play the first mission of DARK FORCES.
The hallmark of a corrupt leader: Being surrounded by yes men.
‘The best visual effects in the world will not compensate for a story told badly.’ - V.E.S.
‘Star Wars is a buffet, enjoy the stuff you want, and leave the rest.’ - SilverWook

Author
Time
 (Edited)

MaximRecoil said:

TV’s Frink said:

Person A: [uses outdated misogynistic term]

Your “misogynistic” assertion has already been confuted, which negates the rest of your post.

Actually, it doesn’t. Basic common human decency suggests that even if you don’t think something is offensive, the fact that many other people think so means you should try to use a different method to get your point across.

As I said and which you keep conveniently ignoring, all you have to do is argue your points about Rey being overpowered or unearned or whatever without using a term many of us find offensive. Should be simple. But nah, it’s better to attempt to prove your superiority instead with big words, right?

Author
Time

NeverarGreat said:

TV’s Frink said:

NeverarGreat said:

TV’s Frink said:

I have heard many men call female characters a Mary Sue. The only time I’ve ever heard anyone call someone a Gary Stu is in a sad desperate attempt to defend their use of Mary Sue.

I previously linked to a good example of the term in use, but here are some pull quotes from the reviews for your reading pleasure:

Ok, now I’ve heard it once.

If you can show me that Mary Sue isn’t used far more often than Gary Stu, I’d love to see it.

I’m not a miracle worker 😉

Don’t tell your new friend Maxim, it will break his heart. :p

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:
Actually, it doesn’t.

Yes, it does. A false premise inherently negates any conclusions which follow from it.

Basic common human decency suggests that even if you don’t think something is offensive, the fact that many other people think so means you should try to use a different method to get your point across.

It has nothing to do with what I think. There is a generally accepted definition of Mary Sue, which is completely at odd with your “gut feeling” of what it means. I’m not going to stop using the English language in accordance with its accepted conventions just because someone else is unwilling or unable to do their homework.

As I said and which you keep conveniently ignoring, all you have to do is argue your points about Rey being overpowered or unearned or whatever without using a term many of us find offensive. Should be simple. But nah, it’s better to attempt to prove your superiority instead with big words, right?

As Kat Feete said, “The term was coined in fanfiction, made its way from there into the publishing world, and has slowly been filtering into the writing community as a useful shorthand for a frighteningly common error in characterization.”

I should disregard useful shorthand because you “have a bad feeling” about it? If you can’t be rational about a topic, why do you even reply to it?

Author
Time

MaximRecoil said:

yhwx said:

MaximRecoil said:

yhwx said:
Well, you cited Wikipedia…

And yes, before you “well actually” me, I know there are rules on Wikipedia, but an unmaintained Wikipedia page can have tons of misinformation on it.

Comparing Wikipedia to Urban Dictionary is utterly absurd, and you trying to hang a lampshade on it doesn’t negate the absurdity. The “Mary Sue” Wikipedia entry isn’t even remotely obscure/unmaintained. Just look at its lengthy “talk” page. Also, the parts I’ve quoted have citations, which are the actual sources.

Okay, I guess. But the fact that Wikipedia editors are overwhelmingly male (by its own self-admission) probably doesn’t help that article out.

You don’t think that the members of this forum, you know, the ones arguing that “Mary Sue” is a misogynistic term, are overwhelmingly male too? The difference is, baseless assertions don’t cut the mustard on Wikipedia.

They certainly can. Wikipedia’s sole goal is not truth; no, it is verifiability. You can put a wild falsehood on Wikipedia as long as it is verifiable.

Also, that summary of the definition of Mary Sue in the opening paragraph is sourced, with the primary source being:

http://fmwriters.com/Visionback/Issue30/marysue.htm

Many of us have heard the term “Mary Sue” floating around writing communities. A Mary Sue is a character that the author identifies with so strongly that the story is warped by it. Sometimes male Sues are called “Gary Stus,” but more often the name is used for both sexes of offenders. The term was coined in fanfiction, made its way from there into the publishing world, and has slowly been filtering into the writing community as a useful shorthand for a frighteningly common error in characterization.

The author is named “Kat Feete” (female name). The other source given is:

http://www.springhole.net/writing/whatisamarysue.htm

Even if we assign some level of credence to your out-of-left-field conspiracy theory, what do those sources have to do with Wikipedia editors?

There’s the societal issues that I’ve mentioned before (and that you have ignored), but this Wikipedia talk is really a distraction. Like Frink said, if your words offend a large cross-section people, find different words.

Author
Time

MaximRecoil said:

why do you even reply to me?

An excellent question and one that I’m going to take seriously starting right now.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

MaximRecoil said:

TV’s Frink said:
Actually, it doesn’t.

Yes, it does. A false premise inherently negates any conclusions which follow from it.

Wow, you know so many words!

Basic common human decency suggests that even if you don’t think something is offensive, the fact that many other people think so means you should try to use a different method to get your point across.

It has nothing to do with what I think. There is a generally accepted definition of Mary Sue, which is completely at odd with your “gut feeling” of what it means. I’m not going to stop using the English language in accordance with its accepted conventions just because someone else is unwilling or unable to do their homework.

Whatever you or other people say is the official definition of the word, it hasn’t been used that way. We don’t judge words by what Webster said once, we judge them by how people actually use them. Every good dictionary adheres to this doctrine.

As I said and which you keep conveniently ignoring, all you have to do is argue your points about Rey being overpowered or unearned or whatever without using a term many of us find offensive. Should be simple. But nah, it’s better to attempt to prove your superiority instead with big words, right?

As Kat Feete said, “The term was coined in fanfiction, made its way from there into the publishing world, and has slowly been filtering into the writing community as a useful shorthand for a frighteningly common error in characterization.”

I should disregard useful shorthand because you “have a bad feeling” about it? If you can’t be rational about a topic, why do you even reply to it?

There are other ways to state the same concept in a short manner.

Author
Time

yhwx said:

They certainly can.

No, mere assertions don’t cut the mustard on Wikipedia, as I already said. Information has to be cited from a reliable source, else it can be removed.

Wikipedia’s sole goal is not truth; no, it is verifiability. You can put a wild falsehood on Wikipedia as long as it is verifiable.

Show me a wild falsehood from a source that Wikipedia editors have agreed is a “reliable source” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources.

There’s the societal issues that I’ve mentioned before (and that you have ignored)

Say what? That assertion has nothing to do with anything I said, nor with anything else I said. Once again, what do Wikipedia editors have to do with those sources? Do you think they control those cited websites?

but this Wikipedia talk is really a distraction. Like Frink said, if your words offend a large cross-section people, find different words.

The only people who are offended are people who don’t know what the term “Mary Sue” means. Logically, that’s their fault, not mine.

Author
Time

MaximRecoil said:

yhwx said:

They certainly can.

No, mere assertions don’t cut the mustard on Wikipedia, as I already said. Information has to be cited from a reliable source, else it can be removed.

Wikipedia’s sole goal is not truth; no, it is verifiability. You can put a wild falsehood on Wikipedia as long as it is verifiable.

Show me a wild falsehood from a source that Wikipedia editors have agreed is a “reliable source” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources.

I’ll concede these points to you because the Wikipedia discussion (which, I’ll admit, I partially instigated) is stupid.

There’s the societal issues that I’ve mentioned before (and that you have ignored)

Say what? That assertion has nothing to do with anything I said, nor with anything else I said. Once again, what do Wikipedia editors have to do with those sources? Do you think they control those cited websites?

Where does that assertion come from? I never said that they controlled those sources; I’m just saying that there’s inherent sexism in our society. Is that that hard to understand? I guess so.

but this Wikipedia talk is really a distraction. Like Frink said, if your words offend a large cross-section people, find different words.

The only people who are offended are people who don’t know what the term “Mary Sue” means. Logically, that’s their fault, not mine.

This is the “your being offended is your fault” attitude that is extremely toxic to the underprivileged. We don’t define words by what somebody in a white paper said once, we define them by how they’re used, and now, “Mary Sue” is being used in a sexist fashion. It is 100% reasonable to be offended by the use of the term Mary Sue. Try asking a woman about it sometime.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

MaximRecoil said:

why do you even reply to me?

Given that you intentionally misquoted my post, your intellectual dishonesty is noted.

An excellent question and one that I’m going to take seriously starting right now.

Good idea.

Author
Time

Thanks for being such a likeable, positive presence on the forum capable of intelligent debate without resorting to condescension over the opposing party.

Author
Time

MaximRecoil said:

TV’s Frink said:

MaximRecoil said:

why do you even reply to me?

Given that you intentionally misquoted my post, your intellectual dishonesty is noted.

It seems like you don’t understand the concept of “joke.”

He wasn’t claiming, either implicitly or explicitly, to be authoritative and truthful in that post. I think that should be obvious. The misquote was used to make a point.

Author
Time

Possessed said:

And about Luke not actually being a great pilot because he gets helped a couple times, agree you forgetting he and wedge are the only ones who even survive?

There’s a Y-wing flying away at the end too.

The Person in Question