Do you have any evidence to support your claim? I looked it up and I didn't see anything about "redemption" necessitating the fawning over of the redemptee by others, so until someone claims otherwise I'm going to believe Mr. Webster.

I'm so confused by this comment. Season three is literally (literally) about "a Federation that keeps adapting, improving, and ultimately continuing as a positive force moving forward through the dedicated collaboration of an infinitely-diverse collaboration of peoples" even in the face of overwhelming odds to the contrary.

Thank you for the sanity. I get so tired hearing Burhnam being held to such an obvious double standard. I wonder why? What is different about the character?

OMG you're so right.

Honestly I'm so used to hearing the same tired old arguments I didn't even process that.

I agree that Gul Dukat is a delusional maniac! The guy I replied to said that only Discovery had such characters. But that said I will gladly accept your Armus!

I'm sorry, but if you truly watched the entire season, you'd know that your description of the events is incongruous with the events as presented on screen.

Musicals are amazing and you are worse than Khan for suggesting otherwise

Discovery gets a lot of selective criticisms in online spaces. I don't want to say it has anything to do with being the first Star Trek show with a Black female as a central main character, but Burhnam does seem to be more frequently criticized for behaviors that are celebrated when done by someone like Kirk or Riker.

There’s no doubt reactions to Discovery have been mixed.

I feel it's important to note that a lot of the "reactions" we see today are the result of coordinated review-bombing campaigns by "anti-woke" outrage-peddling youtubers.

That's not to say it's universally beloved among Trekkies online, just that for someone trying to suss out the "reception" is going to have a difficult time separating authentic reviews from inauthentic ones.

She is the Mariest Sue who ever Mary Sued.

For clarity's sake, a Mary Sue describes a character who can do no wrong. This is how it's described on TVTropes:

[A Mary Sue] is exceptionally talented in an implausibly wide variety of areas, and may possess skills that are rare or nonexistent in the canon setting. She also lacks any realistic, or at least story-relevant, character flaws.

I'm curious how you square that description of a Mary Sue with Burhnam's many regular, repeated, failures and flaws as seen on screen and described in the dialogue? As one example, her character is introduced in the very first episode as a misguided mutineer and is demoted for it.

Honestly, when I hear that interpretation it makes me feel like the person didn't actually watch the season, they just watched the outrage peddling influencers online.

Semi-related but I lost count of the number of times someone on Reddit described Adira's coming out (a ten second moment in a larger unrelated scene) as a "huge story arc" or being comprised of "multiple episodes" being "shoved in the audiences faces". I felt like I was taking crazy pills until I learned that's exactly how the outrage-tubers were presenting it. If you'd never watched the season you'd have no idea it was such an inconsequential moment.

It's also important to separate what you're seeing online from the leftovers of a manufactured "opposition campaign" orchestrated by a handful of reactionary influencers.

Personally speaking I did not like the early two seasons, but I thought three is ok, and seasons four and five I consider to be some of Trek's best!