What are you watching?

  • Welcome to the Resident Evil Community Forum!

    We're a group of fans who are passionate about the Resident Evil series and video gaming.

    Register Log in

You're taking a basic definition way too literally.
Lol, you need to be philosphically consistent Turo. Yes I'm taking it literally. EXACTLY as literally as you took the "Mechanics in RE6 are Useless" argument literally a couple of weeks ago. Your claim was that they have use, therefore they aren't useless. And I agree. We took that definition literally. So, by following that SAME logic, and the same philosophical consistency, this definition needs to be taken literally. And if you do that, she's not a Mary Sue.
 
Lol, you need to be philosphically consistent Turo. Yes I'm taking it literally. EXACTLY as literally as you took the "Mechanics in RE6 are Useless" argument literally a couple of weeks ago. Your claim was that they have use, therefore they aren't useless. And I agree. We took that definition literally. So, by following that SAME logic, and the same philosophical consistency, this definition needs to be taken literally. And if you do that, she's not a Mary Sue.

Wow, well this went nowhere fast... I'm not gonna bother explaining why this is different from that entirely different argument to not risk bringing up old sh*t with a third party that isn't even part of this discussion.

Anyway, all your knowledge of what a Mary Sue is seems to be from a generic google definition and what you think only applies to some kind of agenda, when it doesn't. Which even then, nowhere in that definition does it state that a Mary Sue is completely absent of weakness and flaws. What makes someone a Mary Sue is the unrealistic and bad writing surrounding the character. Which you and I have been consistently agreeing on.
 
Wow, well this went nowhere fast... I'm not gonna bother explaining why this is different from that entirely different argument to not risk bringing up old sh*t with a third party that isn't even part of this discussion.

Anyway, all your knowledge of what a Mary Sue is seems to be from a generic google definition and what you think only applies to some kind of agenda, when it doesn't. Which even then, nowhere in that definition does it state that a Mary Sue is completely absent of weakness and flaws. What makes someone a Mary Sue is the unrealistic and bad writing surrounding the character. Which you and I have been consistently agreeing on.

You misunderstand. We agree she's written poorly. But poor writing doesn't inherently mean Mary Sue. Mary Sue is a byproduct of bad writing, sure, but not necessarily the only possible result. As for the definition thing. That's not devolving quickly. You're changing your own rules. Why would you take one definition literally TO A TEE, then say that's not necessary with this one? What's the variable here that changes why one should be taken literally and why one shouldn't? Understanding this difference in imperative to use speaking the same language here. And that isn't sarcasm. I'm asking because I don't understand your logic here.
 
Rey is no more a Mary Sue than Luke is a Gary Stu. Their story arcs nearly parallel so why fans suddenly have an issue with the hero of a children's story bouncing back from their struggles is baffling.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KennedyKiller
Rey is no more a Mary Sue than Luke is a Gary Stu. Their story arcs nearly parallel so why fans suddenly have an issue with the hero of a children's story bouncing back from their struggles is baffling.
Thank you lol. I like Rey a lot. And a lot of that may be attributed to seeing how much Disey Ridley has grown as an actress over the course of these films. I think she kicks ass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bSTAR_182
Thank you lol. I like Rey a lot. And a lot of that may be attributed to seeing how much Disey Ridley has grown as an actress over the course of these films. I think she kicks ass.


I love Daisy and, like Rey, she has grown and become a strong woman from the entire experience that is Star Wars.


It was heart wrenching seeing her dead on the throne room floor. Ben's redemption was also so beautiful... I really wish we got to see more of Ben Solo because Adam Driver captured a lot of Han Solo's mannerisms brilliantly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KennedyKiller
I love Daisy and, like Rey, she has grown and become a strong woman from the entire experience that is Star Wars.


It was heart wrenching seeing her dead on the throne room floor. Ben's redemption was also so beautiful... I really wish we got to see more of Ben Solo because Adam Driver captured a lot of Han Solo's mannerisms brilliantly.
Dude i know right!? I didn't realize how well cast he was as the offspring to Harrison Ford until this film. But those smirks and line deliveries! My god!
 
  • Like
Reactions: bSTAR_182
You misunderstand. We agree she's written poorly. But poor writing doesn't inherently mean Mary Sue. Mary Sue is a byproduct of bad writing, sure, but not necessarily the only possible result. As for the definition thing. That's not devolving quickly. You're changing your own rules. Why would you take one definition literally TO A TEE, then say that's not necessary with this one? What's the variable here that changes why one should be taken literally and why one shouldn't? Understanding this difference in imperative to use speaking the same language here. And that isn't sarcasm. I'm asking because I don't understand your logic here.

I've elaborated in all of my posts why she's a Mary Sue. I'm not saying bad writing equals Mary Sue, I'm saying the basis for a Mary Sue lies in how the character is written and not an agenda as you've said. You say her faults are reason enough for her not being a Mary Sue because you are under the belief that lacking flaws and weaknesses is the same as having none and that means she can't be a Mary Sue. That's just not true at all. Even Mary Sue herself showed weakness and eventually died. Does Mary Sue suddenly not qualify as a Mary Sue?

You're cherry picking a line from a much bigger debate. Your entire argument might have been based on a literal definition, but I gave examples of my point. I'm telling you there's more to a Mary Sue than a basic definition on Google which you want to use as an objective criteria. So I don't see how that other conversation is relevant.

You've been philosophically inconsistent on many occasions, yet you disregard entire points in an attempt to point out mine like it somehow invalidates what's being said. It's a waste of time and I'm not interested in going down this rabbit hole again, just like the last time you thought I was being "inconsistent."
 
I've elaborated in all of my posts why she's a Mary Sue. I'm not saying bad writing equals Mary Sue, I'm saying the basis for a Mary Sue lies in how the character is written and not an agenda as you've said. You say her faults are reason enough for her not being a Mary Sue because you are under the belief that lacking flaws and weaknesses is the same as having none and that means she can't be a Mary Sue. That's just not true at all. Even Mary Sue herself showed weakness and eventually died. Does Mary Sue suddenly not qualify as a Mary Sue?

You're cherry picking a line from a much bigger debate. Your entire argument might have been based on a literal definition, but I gave examples of my point. I'm telling you there's more to a Mary Sue than a basic definition on Google which you want to use as an objective criteria. So I don't see how that other conversation is relevant.

You've been philosophically inconsistent on many occasions, yet you disregard entire points in an attempt to point out mine like it somehow invalidates what's being said. It's a waste of time and I'm not interested in going down this rabbit hole again, just like the last time you thought I was being "inconsistent."
Well we need to agree on a definition then. You haven't given me a definition. And yes, you can use that as your objective basis. If I use a dictionary, which has a bunch of definitions that we all agree on, there's our objective basis. So what do you want to use, and we can base our arguments from there. Dictionary.com? Wikipedia. The one that pops up on Google? If we aren't using the same definition, then no kidding we're gonna have different arguments, because our arguments are based ON Said definition. So lets come to a consensus on what 3rd party to use as our definition, and we can go from there. Because you claim that my argument is wrong because I'm using a google definition, but how is whatever source you're using any more valid? How do we scale which is the "Right" definition.
 
Well we need to agree on a definition then. You haven't given me a definition. And yes, you can use that as your objective basis. If I use a dictionary, which has a bunch of definitions that we all agree on, there's our objective basis. So what do you want to use, and we can base our arguments from there. Dictionary.com? Wikipedia. The one that pops up on Google? If we aren't using the same definition, then no kidding we're gonna have different arguments, because our arguments are based ON Said definition. So lets come to a consensus on what 3rd party to use as our definition, and we can go from there. Because you claim that my argument is wrong because I'm using a google definition, but how is whatever source you're using any more valid? How do we scale which is the "Right" definition.

There's nothing wrong with the definition. It's just a very basic description that doesn't tell you everything and you misinterpreted it and based your whole argument on it. Lacking flaws and weakness is not the same as not having any.

Why do we need to stick within the limiting confines of a basic Google definition or any one definition? I assumed you would have already known what a Mary Sue was due to how adamantly you stated she wasn't in your original post, but feel free to use any source you want. I've already made all my arguments, we're just arguing semantics at this point. Might as well just agree to disagree if we're never gonna move on from this.
 
Last edited:
There's nothing wrong with the definition. It's just a very basic description that doesn't tell you everything and you misinterpreted it and based your whole argument on it. Lacking flaws and weakness is not the same as not having any.

Why do we need to stick within the limiting confines of a basic Google definition or any one definition? I assumed you would have already known what a Mary Sue was due to how adamantly you stated she wasn't in your original post, but feel free to use any source you want. I've already made all my arguments, we're just arguing semantics at this point. Might as well just agree to disagree if we're never gonna move on from this.
Well, I'd say the reason we need to "Limit" it, at least in this regard, is because like I said before, if we are using different definitions, then we have far less of a chance of understanding one another. For example, you at one point said Rey was able to do badass stuff with zero training. (I'm paraphrasing of course), but Luke did the exact same thing? We never ONCE in A New Hope see that the Force can move objects with your mind. Yet in the first few minutes of Empire, when Luke is suspended upside down in the ice, he busts out this new Force move that brings his lightsaber to him. With zero explanation of how he knew that was even a thing. How is that different in this context? He's had no training save for a blind shield over his face in once scene in a previous movie. Pretty far cry from telekinesis in a later movie with NOTHING in between.
 
Well, I'd say the reason we need to "Limit" it, at least in this regard, is because like I said before, if we are using different definitions, then we have far less of a chance of understanding one another. For example, you at one point said Rey was able to do badass stuff with zero training. (I'm paraphrasing of course), but Luke did the exact same thing? We never ONCE in A New Hope see that the Force can move objects with your mind. Yet in the first few minutes of Empire, when Luke is suspended upside down in the ice, he busts out this new Force move that brings his lightsaber to him. With zero explanation of how he knew that was even a thing. How is that different in this context? He's had no training save for a blind shield over his face in once scene in a previous movie. Pretty far cry from telekinesis in a later movie with NOTHING in between.

What different definitions? The meaning of Mary Sue hasn't changed. You either know what it is or all your knowledge of it is based on a single definition. So which is it? I've already established what it is and we've agreed for the most part, but rather than acknowledge anything that I said in regards to Mary Sue, whether you agree or disagree with it and why, you're instead side tracking the entire argument. You already said Rey can't be a Mary Sue because she has flaws, but I've already told you why that argument is false. Are you gonna acknowledge this or are we gonna keep talking definitions just so you can avoid all my points?

Luke achieved that after years of knowing he was force sensitive and having Obi-Wan as a mentor. Not to mention, it was in the second film, and he was attacked and injured and tried using the force as a last resort. Do I really need to explain how that's different from Rey who achieved this and more in her first film with no prior knowledge of the force but was suddenly more powerful than Kylo Ren? Luke even failed at the end of the film too. How are they the same? A Mary Sue moment/plot armor is not the same as being a Mary Sue.
 
What different definitions? The meaning of Mary Sue hasn't changed. You either know what it is or all your knowledge of it is based on a single definition. So which is it? I've already established what it is and we've agreed for the most part, but rather than acknowledge anything that I said in regards to Mary Sue, whether you agree or disagree with it and why, you're instead side tracking the entire argument. You already said Rey can't be a Mary Sue because she has flaws, but I've already told you why that argument is false. Are you gonna acknowledge this or are we gonna keep talking definitions just so you can avoid all my points?

Luke achieved that after years of knowing he was force sensitive and having Obi-Wan as a mentor. Not to mention, it was in the second film, and he was attacked and injured and tried using the force as a last resort. Do I really need to explain how that's different from Rey who achieved this and more in her first film with no prior knowledge of the force but was suddenly more powerful than Kylo Ren? Luke even failed at the end of the film too. How are they the same? A Mary Sue moment/plot armor is not the same as being a Mary Sue.
You've tried to CONVINCE me that that argument is false, and I disagree, and have given counter arguments as to why I disagree. I don't think what you're saying about her is enough to justify the Mary Sue label. Captain Marvel is a Mary Sue. Hermione for about, the first four books, is a Mary Sue. They're perfect, and can do no wrong. As well as have zero flaws that have ramifications on the story at large. Rey, does. Her whole training with Luke and going straight for the Darkside is an example of an entire SCENE dedicated to her flaws, where Luke has to effectively save her, and admonish her for her lack of control and idiocy.

As for the Luke and the Force issue. He didn't even know what the Force WAS until the conversation with Ben. Who dies literally HOURS later. And we have zero proof of him training to use the force between those two movies. It's done off screen, and is even actually stated that he does it. So, from a story telling standpoint, that's JUST as much of a Deus Ex Machina as Rey using the force in the Kylo Ren fight. She had just as much Force Knowledge from Leia as Luke got From Obi-Wan if we are going off of screen time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bSTAR_182
Luke achieved that after years of knowing he was force sensitive and having Obi-Wan as a mentor. Not to mention, it was in the second film, and he was attacked and injured and tried using the force as a last resort. Do I really need to explain how that's different from Rey who achieved this and more in her first film with no prior knowledge of the force but was suddenly more powerful than Kylo Ren? Luke even failed at the end of the film too. How are they the same? A Mary Sue moment/plot armor is not the same as being a Mary Sue.

To piggy back off the notion that Luke had absolutely no knowledge of the force prior to meeting Obi-Wan (and received very basic training from him in a short amount of time). We know Rey knew about the force in the beginning of TFA. Like many others, she heard stories of the past and knew of the heroes- including Luke Skywalker. She did her fare share of scavenging the remains of the past wars. Like the title, The Force Awakens, suggests, the force calls to Rey the moment she touches Luke’s lightsaber in the cantina. That’s when we start to notice her toying around more with the force. She clearly is not perfect at it but it does eventually work in her favor due to the fact that the sequel trilogy uses the Force as a calling for the individual.

Kylo was fighting both Finn and Rey after being severely injured by Chewie. Between his injury, fatigue, and newfound interest in the lonely girl that had force sensitivity (he was “seduced” :biggrin:), he lost the fight ( not to mention Rey knew a thing or two about fighting techniques so it was not like she was completely helpless).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KennedyKiller
Here’s a fantastic video for all you Star Wars fans. It revolves around one of my personal favorites, The Last Jedi, which I know many of you have strong feelings for... but the guy also brings up a lot of great points about the entire series.

 
Here’s a fantastic video for all you Star Wars fans. It revolves around one of my personal favorites, The Last Jedi, which I know many of you have strong feelings for... but the guy also brings up a lot of great points about the entire series.

Off the bat I agree with one thing. Star Wars isn't science fiction. It's just the same old "Heroes Journey" story that we all know. Also, he talks about the fans limiting the Force with the newer films, saying the story now needs to fit the Force and not the other way around. Are fans saying that? I mean...I've never really had a problem with new, unexplained Force powers. Am I the minority in this?

When it comes to his point about Luke using the Force for non violence in The Last Jedi, here I agree and disagree. But again...Maybe I'm the odd one out. I have ZERO issue with both, the way he choose to resolve the issue with no bloodshed, as well as the Force power used to do so. I just have an issue with the idea that such a parlor trick was so strong it killed Luke. That's the part that seems...well...Forced. Like they just wanted kill him so that they could keep placing emphasis on the new cast, by killing him off in a bogus way to elicit a half-hearted emotional reaction and shove the new characters down our throats. I couldn't care less that he wasn't "Actually there."

Now one thing I *Definitely* disagree with in this video is when he says, "Fans like to say Rian Johnson threw away stuff JJ built up, but he didn't. He just built upon it in a way you didn't like." Paraphrasing. That's false. Episode VIII was being written before VII was even finished. It's VERY clear Disney didn't actually have a fully completely story before announcing a new Trilogy, and was just hoping the hype alone would generate enough interest for them to be able to build a yacht out of $100 bills. So yes...Rian DID throaw away what JJ was working on, because JJ wasn't even finished yet when Rian started working on his own script. The two visions each had for the series completely clashed, and it all leads back to Disney for not having a completely and cohesive story all planned out in advance like Papa Lucas did.

My other complaint is that he says the film earns the cheesy "We'll beat them by saving what we love" line. No. No it doesn't. Rogue One, Empire Strikes Back, Revenge of the Sith, and even Return of the Jedi (My personal favorite if I'm being honest) all show in some capacity, that this is war. Kids movie or not, war is still war. And this moment cheapens that, and reminds us, "Oh right. This is a movie. Consequences aren't real. Good guy characters don't die, and cheesy, quotable, feel-good lines are more important than forcing the horror of war onto us, the unsuspecting audience." All the risks Rian Johnson takes in this film, and THIS is where he draws the line? I love Finn. He's probably my second favorite character in the new cast. But for him to die there...and save the Resistance would have been FAR more powerful. I didn't even know I wanted that until it DIDN'T happen. I wasn't expecting it to happen. And even if it didn't, I could have forgiven the scene if it didn't have something SO cheesey. People can say what they want about the romance dialogue between Anakin and Padme, and talk sh*t on George Lucas. But this is even worse if ya ask me.

All in all, I did really like the video . This has been one of the best critiques of The Last Jedi I've seen so far. Unfortnately, he really only tapped into one of the three major issues I have with the movie, and I didn't agree with his take on it, so I can't say I think he's all around "Right." But that's fine in my book. If anything this video showed me that, apparently I dislike "The Last Jedi" for COMPLETELY different reasons than the other masses of fans, considering what he kept pointing out they were claiming as issues was stuff that, for the most part didn't bother me lol. Apparently I can't get along with lovers OR haters of that movie XD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bSTAR_182
In my opinion Rey wasn't originally a Mary Sue, Infact in episode 7 and 8 she is prone to failure, and need other character help many times to survive

But in episode 9 she is a total Mary Sue, the movie is also so badly written that every character had to please the plot from start to end
 
Off the bat I agree with one thing. Star Wars isn't science fiction. It's just the same old "Heroes Journey" story that we all know. Also, he talks about the fans limiting the Force with the newer films, saying the story now needs to fit the Force and not the other way around. Are fans saying that? I mean...I've never really had a problem with new, unexplained Force powers. Am I the minority in this?

Yes, many fans have vocalized their disdain for the ForceTime that takes place and, now, the healing powers.


I just have an issue with the idea that such a parlor trick was so strong it killed Luke. That's the part that seems...well...Forced. Like they just wanted kill him so that they could keep placing emphasis on the new cast, by killing him off in a bogus way to elicit a half-hearted emotional reaction and shove the new characters down our throats. I couldn't care less that he wasn't "Actually there."

My only explanation I have for it is that Luke projected himself for a far longer period of time than any of the other projections. If we consider the idea that, while Snoke initiated the ForceTime between Rey and Kylo, we can also speculate that both Rey and Kylo began putting in their own efforts the more their relationship progressed during those projections- thus there would be 3 force users putting forth the effort..?
Luke solely projecting himself across galaxies seems like it would be a strenuous task- one that would require all his strength and effort.

I do wish we got to see his force ghost participate more in the final fight against Palp, but I can also understand why they didn't go that route.

Now one thing I *Definitely* disagree with in this video is when he says, "Fans like to say Rian Johnson threw away stuff JJ built up, but he didn't. He just built upon it in a way you didn't like." Paraphrasing. That's false. Episode VIII was being written before VII was even finished. It's VERY clear Disney didn't actually have a fully completely story before announcing a new Trilogy, and was just hoping the hype alone would generate enough interest for them to be able to build a yacht out of $100 bills. So yes...Rian DID throaw away what JJ was working on, because JJ wasn't even finished yet when Rian started working on his own script. The two visions each had for the series completely clashed, and it all leads back to Disney for not having a completely and cohesive story all planned out in advance like Papa Lucas did.

I always heard that Rian asked JJ where he planned to take things and JJ didn't really have any input and granted Rian the freedom to take the series where Rian saw fit.

My other complaint is that he says the film earns the cheesy "We'll beat them by saving what we love" line. No. No it doesn't. Rogue One, Empire Strikes Back, Revenge of the Sith, and even Return of the Jedi (My personal favorite if I'm being honest) all show in some capacity, that this is war. Kids movie or not, war is still war. And this moment cheapens that, and reminds us, "Oh right. This is a movie. Consequences aren't real. Good guy characters don't die, and cheesy, quotable, feel-good lines are more important than forcing the horror of war onto us, the unsuspecting audience." All the risks Rian Johnson takes in this film, and THIS is where he draws the line? I love Finn. He's probably my second favorite character in the new cast. But for him to die there...and save the Resistance would have been FAR more powerful. I didn't even know I wanted that until it DIDN'T happen. I wasn't expecting it to happen. And even if it didn't, I could have forgiven the scene if it didn't have something SO cheesey. People can say what they want about the romance dialogue between Anakin and Padme, and talk sh*t on George Lucas. But this is even worse if ya ask me.

As cheesy as the message is... it’s a good one. We all know the sacrifices and struggles with war and TLJ shows us this through the failures of the Resistance time and time again throughout the movie.
Them deciding to not kill Finn off reminds me of the debate of whether or not Capcom should have gone through with killing Chris off. At the end of the day that is all personal opinion. I Liked that they didn’t kill him off, even though we had to listen to the cheesy line that followed (which holds some power and truth behind it and the story they wanted to tell with the sequel trilogy).

But in episode 9 she is a total Mary Sue, the movie is also so badly written that every character had to please the plot from start to end
How so?

She trained with Leia for at least a year... that’s longer than any of Luke’s training from Obi-Wan and Yoda combined. So the fact that she is more sound in her force abilities is justifiable.
She still struggles with her identity and doubts. She was getting her ass handed to her during her final fight against Kylo before Leia distracted Kylo. Rey also loses her life at the end, which is a bigger sacrifice over losing a limb.

I will say that The Rise of Skywalker plays things very safe in an attempt to appease all fans with the final film in the saga. It’s why they practically did away with the Rose character, it’s why they went back on the notion that Rey doesn’t have any blood ties to the Force and it’s also why they completely toned down ReyLo/ReyBen. They kept things vague to let fans have their own thoughts and imaginations on it all.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KennedyKiller
Yes, many fans have vocalized their disdain for the ForceTime that takes place and, now, the healing powers.
Well...That's news to me. And also seems kinda dumb...I mean, haven't we seen Force Healing in Star Wars video games for years? Like I could be wrong, but in several Star Wars it's a skill your character can learn. Sure one could argue that's a game mechanic to heal one's self, but they could have just as easily left Health Packs around. Instead, they give us the ability to use the Force to heal ourselves. So it's not like this is new.


My only explanation I have for it is that Luke projected himself for a far longer period of time than any of the other projections. If we consider the idea that, while Snoke initiated the ForceTime between Rey and Kylo, we can also speculate that both Rey and Kylo began putting in their own efforts the more their relationship progressed during those projections- thus there would be 3 force users putting forth the effort..?
Luke solely projecting himself across galaxies seems like it would be a strenuous task- one that would require all his strength and effort.
That's how I've always rationalized it as well, but it always felt so half hearted. But it's the best we'll get, and it's far from the worst thing in the film so I don't dwell on it too much lol.


I always heard that Rian asked JJ where he planned to take things and JJ didn't really have any input and granted Rian the freedom to take the series where Rian saw fit.
That very well may be the case. I haven't heard that, but I don't have any sources to dismiss it either lol

As cheesy as the message is... it’s a good one. We all know the sacrifices and struggles with war and TLJ shows us this through the failures of the Resistance time and time again throughout the movie.
Them deciding to not kill Finn off reminds me of the debate of whether or not Capcom should have gone through with killing Chris off. At the end of the day that is all personal opinion. I Liked that they didn’t kill him off, even though we had to listen to the cheesy line that followed (which holds some power and truth behind it and the story they wanted to tell with the sequel trilogy).
I mean...I don't necessarily think that's a good message personally. The idea of winning a war with love. But, by the same token, that's an opinion. Some folks may love that message. And the message itself isn't really the problem anyway. It's the incredibly cheesey and blunt way it's put XD. As for Finn dying, I'm definitely glad he didn't. I think Finn is an awesome character. I just find it so weird that TLJ takes ALL these risks, then this is the moment they choose to play it safe. That's what I really can't get my head around lol
 
You've tried to CONVINCE me that that argument is false, and I disagree, and have given counter arguments as to why I disagree. I don't think what you're saying about her is enough to justify the Mary Sue label. Captain Marvel is a Mary Sue. Hermione for about, the first four books, is a Mary Sue. They're perfect, and can do no wrong. As well as have zero flaws that have ramifications on the story at large. Rey, does. Her whole training with Luke and going straight for the Darkside is an example of an entire SCENE dedicated to her flaws, where Luke has to effectively save her, and admonish her for her lack of control and idiocy.

As for the Luke and the Force issue. He didn't even know what the Force WAS until the conversation with Ben. Who dies literally HOURS later. And we have zero proof of him training to use the force between those two movies. It's done off screen, and is even actually stated that he does it. So, from a story telling standpoint, that's JUST as much of a Deus Ex Machina as Rey using the force in the Kylo Ren fight. She had just as much Force Knowledge from Leia as Luke got From Obi-Wan if we are going off of screen time.

Your argument was objectively wrong though. You can defend the writing all you want, but you keep saying she can't be a Mary Sue because she displays flaws which is false. Again, your idea of a Mary Sue is flawed. You keep pushing the notion that being perfect and flawless is all that characterizes a Mary Sue when Mary Sue herself wasn't perfect and the idea behind her was to highlight bad writing that creates unrealistic scenarios in service of the character, such as established characters not acting in character and being impressed and outdone by Mary Sue herself. Which describes Rey perfectly.

I can't speak for Captain Marvel or Hermione as my knowledge of them is limited, but being perfect and flawless is not what makes one a Mary Sue. Characters can be flawless and do no wrong and still not be considered a Mary Sue so long it is well written/believable within the context of the fictional world, which is done by establishing a solid background.

Rey and Luke are essentially the same character, which is part of the problem. They go through the same exact journey (which is lazy writing for Rey) but the outcomes and the way in which they get there is completely different.

From the start, we have a very clear understanding of who Luke is before he embarks on the hero's journey. He is given a solid background, motivation, and believable skills that he puts to the test throughout the film, yet he never demonstrates anything close to what Rey can do because he's still your typical everyman. Meanwhile, Rey has just about the same skill set as Luke by being a scavenger and has heard some stories so somehow that makes her very competent, independent, and powerful throughout her journey.

Cherry picking moments without any regard of context and comparing them doesn't make them the same and it only highlights how terribly uninspired the sequel trilogy is as it's merely a cheap imitation that fails to understand why those scenes worked and weren't just there to make Luke a "badass."

While Rey displayed need for training and was drawn to the darkside just like Luke, her selflessness and hyper competence diminishes her flaws whereas Luke's flaws led to direct failure. They're doing all the same things, except that Rey is doing it all with cheat codes which is very uninteresting and well, Mary Sue-like.

Luke had to grow before he could fight with a lightsaber, use the force to move objects, and Jedi mind trick. He's able to do these things throughout the span of three films and he still fails. He doesn't do it all on his own either. As you said, the problem with Rey was treating her background as a mystery. This was fine for the first film because we were all led to believe they had some sort of plan and knew where they were going and then The Last Jedi happened and threw a wrench in the non-existent trilogy plans. Like the asshole kid who purposely tries to simultaneously tank the last and next sentence in the chain story.

You can argue The Rise of Skywalker fixes her Mary Sue status, but for me, it really doesn't and it's too late. It's just terrible writing. If rumors are true about the Justice League-like production of the film, then it only further cements what a poorly thrown together trilogy this was and Rey is no exception as she's just female Luke but better in every single way. They completely undermined the purpose of the first 6 films for Rey. The actors are great and the characters are fine, they're all just incredibly wasted and feel like nothing more than new action figures. It's like a bad fan fiction.