Is the character of Jar-Jar-Binks really neccessary to the story?

Philip023 wrote:

and as far as Episode 3, I can only assume Lucas is going to digitally insert Jar Jar into the OT.

As Obi-Wan Kenobi once said, "Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!"

But you know, it wouldn't surprise me - Lucas seems hell-bent on ruining the OT with all his little "improvements". Maybe he figures that if he makes them as awful as the PT, people will eventually forget that Star Wars used to be a lot better and will quit criticizing the PT... or something. Who knows??

But I tell you, Lucas is to the OT as Michael Jackson is to his own face! Now how's that for an analogy??

"But I tell you, Lucas is to the OT as Michael Jackson is to his own face! Now how's that for an analogy??"
that's brilliant

Gomer wrote:

Obviously, his being a senator indicates a certain level of responsibility on Jar-Jar's part.

I don't think he was actually a senator was he? I thought they said he was a Gungan representative.

And I think it's pretty easy to figure out why they made him a representative - to get rid of him! That was Boss Nass's agenda all along, remember? First he banished Jar Jar, then he made him a General (hoping he'd be killed, no doubt!)... and when that didn't work, he sent him as far away as possible!

Well he ended up acting as a Senator, but he was really just a senator's aide until Amidala put him in charge.

I never really thought of the whole Boss Nass trying to ditch Jar-Jar angle. That makes a lot of sense.

Kind of like how the US sent Jerry Lewis to France.

The fact that some people have dispariaged every episode in the SW saga is not a matter of opinion.
It happened.
For each and every one of them.

Yeah, so what?
Some people don't like Godfather 3, but that doesn't mean it's in the same league as the first 2 films.
Maybe a few people did dislike R2 and 3PO, but a thousand times as many hated JJB.

g

You could do the entire movie with just Obi-wan, Anakin, Jango, Palpatine, Dooku, Nute Gunray, Padme, Jango, Yoda, Bail, and Lama Su.

Just think about it: Padme's ship comes, it blows up, Padme climbs out of her fighter and looks worried. Next scene, Yoda, Padme and Bail are talking to Palpatine in his office. Most of Mace's lines are spoken by Yoda. Then, we cut to Padme's apartment, where we have the same scene as in the movie, but without Typho and Jar Jar. That night, Jango tries to kill Padme with the bugs, but he's stopped and Obi-Wan jumps after him. There's a big chase scene, that ends with Jango shooting a poison dart at Obi-Wan and missing, then flying away. See? Perfectly fine, and it would cost much less.

MeBeJedi wrote:

I used to be a special ed. teacher for four years. Nice try, though.

paraquim replied:

Nice try nothin'. You do the work a disservice with language like retard.

I agree! And that fact that MeBeJedi used to be special ed teacher does not make his use of that term acceptable in any way - in fact, it makes it even more appalling! Imagine what the parents of his former students would think - not to mention the students themselves!

Shame on you, MeBeJedi!

Hell, i've spent my whole life watching my mentally handicapped brother being called names like the one you blithely use - poor show!

Indeed. I'm sorry your brother has been treated so poorly by callous idiots.

Philip023 wrote:

name one value he has? isn't selfish? Isn't his personality based on personal gratification and to heck with everyone else? Isn't that the recurring theme in tpm? Did he have table manners in tpm? No one empathised with his character and that's why his role was practically non existent in aotc. the proof is there. Just watch the films.

You're absolutely correct in your assessment of his character, and I'd add that he's also a coward and a fool to boot.

However, Jar Jar could have easily been redeemed had Lucas made the changes that you (or someone, can't remember who) posted earlier - made him more mature, well-spoken, etc.... and I wouldn't have had any problem buying it, either.

I seem to recall reading before AOTC came out that Jar Jar would be a more mature character, and that his behavior in the first movie had been due to his youth. It seemed reasonable to me - just because he appeared to be fully grown in the first movie didn't make it so. He's an alien, after all - his mental maturity wouldn't necessarily have to match his physical maturity. Ten years had gone by between movies, and I was fully prepared to accept him as a more mature, reasonable character who would actually add something to the plot.

Unfortunately, Lucas decided against making the character into someone whom a reasonable person might actually find believable as a representative to the Galactic Senate, and hilarity ensued (er, not).

Oh well!



By the way, now that I've gotten some sleep and had a chance to read more of this thread, I totally agree that the motion to grant Palpatine emergency powers would've been more meaningful coming from either Organa or Amidala - for me it's a toss-up which would've been better/more ironic given what we all know follows.

MeBeJedi wrote:

Not to mention the irony of someone with such a recent "incept date" thinking they know me and my stance at all.

(Waiting to see if anyone gets the reference)

I got it - LOL!

I wrote:

"But I tell you, Lucas is to the OT as Michael Jackson is to his own face! Now how's that for an analogy??"

DarthBud replied:

that's brilliant

LOL, thanks!

In reply to me, Gomer ( I know what a "GOMER" is - do you?) wrote:

I never really thought of the whole Boss Nass trying to ditch Jar-Jar angle. That makes a lot of sense.

Thanks!

Now, see how nice it is when we can open each others' minds to a whole new angle on things?

Kind of like how the US sent Jerry Lewis to France.

Yes, exactly!

>>>>But you know, it wouldn't surprise me - Lucas seems hell-bent on ruining the OT with all his little "improvements".

And yet you think Bail Organa's character would benefit from being the one who proposed the vote to end democracy in favour of sending an army to fight the Seperatists? The character whose position in the OT was as a leader of the Rebellion through peaceful resistance?

(Nice Jackson analogy though...)

Hudnall, I agree that you could argue Bail's story would also provide some great thematic material if he was given Padme's political self. However, I'm obviously guessing, but I think his story will do that, and Leia will have to go on to redeem him, but for some other reason. For example, it would be ironic if he had something to do with the creation of the Death Star before realising what he had done...

I do have another problem with the Bail argument though. When I said that the plot was secondary to the thematic elements, I meant to add that the plot does still have to make sense (of course)! I'm surprised nobody picked up on that... maybe nobody else read my post... but anyway, Padme giving Bail the power to look after Naboo's concerns in her absence would actually be a problem (plot-wise), as Bail is from Alderaan! I can't see Padme handing over the fate of her planet to someone who doesn't live there - and nor should she. If she did she would go against all her political beliefs, and also (presumably) the rules of the Senate.

But I still think it's a mistake to focus on the plot, so I don't think thats entirely relevant...

I also agree with you that Jar Jar's role as 'fool' was complete by the end of TPM. But his role as a mirror for Anakin wasn't complete, and still isn't complete. He needed to do something disastrously bad, thinking he was doing the right thing - and that is exactly what he has done!

Moog - I read your post. You can't argue that Padme and Bail were both very close in the political arena. I believe, we've only just begun to see that relationship. As somehow, Padme's daughter gets entrusted to him.

Your arguing plot logic that only exists in 2-3 lines of dialogue. Dialogue that can be rewritten in moments, and none of us would know otherwise.

Did anybody know that the Ghost of Ben appeared to Vader and Anakin on DS2 right before they enter the throne room? No.

Many things change in the script-writing process, and this is one that should have. The audience wouldn't have blinked if Bail had represented Padme's interests on the motion. In fact, most of us would be praising how genius it was.

kittenmommy - Nice Jackson analogy.

It could be re written, but then it wouldn't be the story Lucas is trying to tell.

He put a lot of thought into this story, and you come along and say: Well let's just switch these two characters around. No one would notice.

But the noticable thing would be all the ways the story resonates with our subconscious. By stripping the narrative of it's mythological undercurrents, you essentially rip the archetypical soul right out of this plot point.

It works better the way George did it from a pacing standpoint (Jar-Jar is ready made for the task while Bail would require more exposition to explain his reasoning for making the motion.

It works better from a Mythological standpoint by using the Frog archetype.

So if you like your stories to have deeper undercurrents than just what is visible on the surface, Jar-Jar Binks really is neccessary to the story Lucas is trying to tell.

Necessary in the Phantom Menace, not in this movie.

Move along, move along.

Not remotely necessary. And it made no sense that he would be the one to get Palps the emergency powers. If he paid any attention to Padme he'd have known that she of all people would have exhausted every diplomatic solution possible before giving Palps authority to start a war.

And I'm sure in Ep. III his role will be reduced even further.

Jar-Jar was just as neccesary in AOTC as the guy who made the motion for emergency powers.

Unless you don't care about the mythological aspects of this story. If you don't care about that, then you could do anything you wanted with the story.

The subject of the thread is "Is the character of Jar Jar Binks really necessary to the story?"

The story is that emergency powers were handed over to Palpatine by someone who was trying to do the right thing for the Republic, as a direct reaction to the danger posed by the newly discovered Seperatist army. Someone who hadn't been involved in the deadlocked debate that had been going on for some time.

There are 2 possibilities to fill that role;

1) Someone standing in for another senator
2) A brand new senator (who would presumably be replacing an old senator, so therefore not really different to 1.)

So who else could be standing in for another senator? Not Padme (without completely rewriting the film.) Not Bail- he was mentioned as a candidate for Supreme Chancellor in TPM.

So who does that leave, apart from the character who just happens to be a big frog (see my previous post about frogs for reasons why that's relevant.)

Bail Antilles was candidate for Chancellor in TPM.

And Gomer, the mythological role, the Fool, for Jar Jar was already fulfilled.

Obviously not.

The question of jar jar's necessity is not a knock against jar jar. It rather, stems from his role in the story or, if you will, the whole saga in general (since we must - apparently - view the whole tale as one big movie with chapters).

Scott3eyez: the mythology is already there without jar jar being interpreted as some frog creature and his transformation or morphisis. Quite frankly, I shouldn't have to read Joseph Campbell either, to try and "figure out" this film(s).

The exposition of jar jar in the film has no soul. He is what he is: a bumbling fool. Nothing more, nothing less. He is neither necessary to the advancement of the plot, nor to the story lucas is trying to tell.

Unless he's said otherwise, Lucas is telling the story of the fall of Anakin to the dark side. The context of his fall into darkness is the corruption of the Republic and resulting civil war. Jar Jar is not necessasry to either of these plot lines.

People are saying that only jar Jar could have made the motion because he was some 'fearful reactionary'. They back it up by saying it could not have worked any other way because that is the story lucas is trying to tell. But how can this be? Isn't this a self fullfilling prophecy? Since he did it this way, it is correct. Since jar jar made the motion, it could not have happened any other way. Since Lucas is trying to tell the story (as they see it) this way, it must, no, it HAS to be, the best way.

But they lose sight of the story itself.

If we are to look at the PT within a context as one giant film by combining the OT with it, then the film clearly flows better with Bail making the motion.

No reason or excuse is given for Jar Jar to do the exact OPPOSITe of what Padme really wants. And further, there is no reason given as to why Padme would put jar jar in charge at such a critical moment in the future of the Republic.

Further, if there is to be a connection with the OT for the purposes of continuity, then Bail would fit perfectly with the casting of the motion. No additional exposition would be necessary. I mean, since we're leaving it to assumption as to why Jar Jar did what he did, then why can't we do the same with Bail? But with Bail, we WOULD get an explanation because we know that he aligns alderaan with the rebellion.

With Jar Jar, their is no connection with the OT apart from the ACT itself. Not the person making it, only the act. So at least from a continuity standpoint, Bail should have made the motion.

The mythology that people speak of is there in the film but is really unseen in jar jar's character. He is nothing more than comic relief. Lucas can make mistakes. He isn't infallible.

Certain characters resonate with fans, possibly even children. Jar Jar certainly resonated with children. But that doesn't make his character necessary to the plot. Adults crucified him. Not because we don't like comedy, but because his character was nonsensical. It seemed contrived, and morphed into the trivial with his disappearance in AOTC.

I've read Campbell numerous times, and it was already fulfilled.

Face it. Your biggest supporters for using Jar Jar are people who HATE Jar Jar. That's why Lucas did it. "Pander" is a word that comes to mind.

It wasn't completelly fulfilled in TPM. Only in part.

Lucas says he didn't pander, and goes on to say that he can't worry about trying to please everyone. He expected some people to not like the comic side kick, but he sees that as an inevitability and he says it isn't going to keep him from using these kinds of characters.

Lucas dismisses the ant Jar-Jar sentiment as being the result of a few older people on the Internet. He says that you just don't hear as much from the people who liked him, because that's not where the media sees a story that will sell.

Phillip023: The exposition of jar jar in the film has no soul. He is what he is: a bumbling fool. Nothing more, nothing less. He is neither necessary to the advancement of the plot, nor to the story lucas is trying to tell.

---

/>

/>

But you've never backed it up Gomer.

You keep relying on an interpretation of the film that can only be seen through viewing other material or reading Joseph Campbell.

To the casual fan, they are not going to go into that kind of depth to try and understand the inner machinations of a make believe character.

Perhaps this is why they do not grant as much importance to this character as you do. After all, nothing you have posited in this debate seems to be grounded in the film itself, but is based on your interpretation of Lucas' vision, what Lucas has said he "meant to do", and a perception of mythology only gleened from Campbell or other medium.

And, I guess it begs the question, would Lucas ever admit a mistake or something done not to par? Surely he cannot be proud of every aspect of every single piece of work he'd ever done. Otherwise, why revamp the OT? Sure, the tech wasn't there back in the day, but why revamp scenes? We talked about spin a while back. Lucas is surely a master at this. he's a politician. He would surely spin something if he was heavily criticized for it, otherwise people wouldn't be asking him these questions all the time.