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

I and a few others have repeatedly backed this up, you choose to ignore it.

If some people are only looking at the surface level, then that's their loss.

That doesn't mean Lucas should drop all of the depth and meaning just because some people won't take the time to appreciate it.

Lucas admits when he is unhappy with his own work all the time. It's why he is re tweaking the SE's, and it's why he continues to re edit the prequels for their DVD release.

But when it comes to Jar-Jar, Lucas says he is really happy with the way he turned out.

 

And, I guess it begs the question, would Lucas ever admit a mistake or something done not to par?

I said he is a master corporate spinster all the way a few threads back, and I was told that was ridiculous. Everything that George says is 100% truth.

 

Well, as it relates to choosing to ignore all your supplementary evidence that isn't in the film - you are correct.

Why should I read this? It isn't in the film. So, we either need to read all the supplementary stuff to get a sense of what George is doing?

So the movie cannot stand on its own? I guess that must be true if you're justifying jar jar's necessity solely on the basis of evidence away from the film itself.

I think we would be making progress if you can admit to this.

And yes, Hudnall, I agree. Lucas would not own up to a mistake - especially one in which he has been heavily criticized on.

 

Of course it stands on it's own from just a surface narrative standpoint, but the added layers of mythological depth pay off on a subconscious level. Even for people who don't want to take the time to make themselves aware of these mythological underpinnings.

It taps into something in our subconscious that is universal for all human beings.

 

I am only speaking of your review of the literature to support Jar Jar's necessity, not the mythological underpinnings of the film on a conscious or subconscious level.

The dialogue is the narrative. That should be sufficient. And it isn't that I do not want to take the time to read all the stuff you have, its that I or anyone else shouldn't have to in order to base an opinion on jjb.

 

Me:

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

Scott3eyez:

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?

Well... yeah! Nothing like showing a little motivation for his involvement in the Rebellion, and guilt is a great movitavor!

If he'd trusted Palpatine and was key player in the events that got him into power, it would only make sense that he'd later realize that he'd majorly effed up and do his darndest to rectify the situation!

Yes?

(Nice Jackson analogy though...)

Thanks!

 

Hudnall wrote:

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.

Just recalled a pop song that used the phrase "Whomp, there it is!" as its refrain.

Can't imagine what made me think of that.

 

Philip023 wrote:

We talked about spin a while back. Lucas is surely a master at this. he's a politician.

He is?

Wow!

Let's hope he decides to run against Bush - I'd vote for him!

Of course, I'd vote for Jar Jar over Bush - Jar Jar is obviously more intelligent!



Edit: Oh, and Philip023 - in case you think I'm ripping on you:

 

Well... yeah! Nothing like showing a little motivation for his involvement in the Rebellion, and guilt is a great movitavor!

That's EXACTLY what I said. Amen. Something has to motivate him very heavily to risk his life, career and planet...

It even gives a reason why he's escaped Palp's notice for 20 years...

And adds a mythological symbolism in a dual-redemption for both of the twins.

 

Philip023 wrote:

The dialogue is the narrative. That should be sufficient.

Amen!

I read the Attack of the Clones novelization and I could finally, finally understand what Padmé might've seen in Anakin - but only because R.A. Salvatore added a lot of stuff that wasn't in the movie anywhere - not even in the deleted scenes.

I even told my husband (who had not read the novel) that it now all made sense and he said that you shouldn't have to read the novel for the love story to be believable - well, duh!

Did we have to read the ESB novel for the Leia/Han love story to be believable? No.

And we shouldn't have to read a bunch of stuff totally unrealated to SW for Jar Jar to be believable in his role as representative or whatever the hell he's supposed to be in AOTC.

Frankly, I think my fics in which Sidious is Palpatine's evil twin brother are more believeable than the idea that Padmé left Jar Jar in charge of anything more galaxy-shaking than what to order from Dunkin' Donuts.

 

Me:

Well... yeah! Nothing like showing a little motivation for his involvement in the Rebellion, and guilt is a great movitavor!

Hudnall:

That's EXACTLY what I said. Amen.

Great minds and all that...

Something has to motivate him very heavily to risk his life, career and planet...

It even gives a reason why he's escaped Palp's notice for 20 years...

And adds a mythological symbolism in a dual-redemption for both of the twins.

Yep, yep and yep!

 

Actually, nope.

Like I said, we don't have enough time to flesh out every ancillary character. Part of the reason Lucas spent parts of TPM to flesh out Jar-Jar was to groom him for this purpose in Episode II.

Having someone else do that would essentially toss all that characterization out the window.

From a narrative standpoint it would be counter productive, and it would take too much time away from the real story to facilitate that change.

Having Jar-Jar in a position of power is one of the most realistic things about these movies.

Just look at our politicians here on Earth.

 

Like I said, we don't have enough time to flesh out every ancillary character.

If we did, AOTC would have been a much better movie.

Having Jar-Jar in a position of power is one of the most realistic things about these movies.

Just look at our politicians here on Earth.

Hee hee You get points for that. You know, Go, you do have a way of growing on people, like mold jk

Ok.. to point... Have a person who is really in a position of power be swindled by 'fear' for the Galaxy is much more believable in terms of real world.

I read the Attack of the Clones novelization and I could finally, finally understand what Padmé might've seen in Anakin - but only because R.A. Salvatore added a lot of stuff that wasn't in the movie anywhere - not even in the deleted scenes.

I'm just wrapping it up myself. I held out before the movie, and then I just couldn't bring myself to do it.

The dialogue was so much better. And you know, it had EVERY single line in the movie in it - but those super corn lines were intermixed with real language.

 

We need? What about, you need? (is this super corn too?)

Edit: Grammar correction. and then some

 

Gomer wrote:

Like I said, we don't have enough time to flesh out every ancillary character.

Hudnall replied:

If we did, AOTC would have been a much better movie.

Hey, there ya go!!

Me:

I read the Attack of the Clones novelization and I could finally, finally understand what Padmé might've seen in Anakin - but only because R.A. Salvatore added a lot of stuff that wasn't in the movie anywhere - not even in the deleted scenes.

Hudnall:

I'm just wrapping it up myself. I held out before the movie, and then I just couldn't bring myself to do it.



The dialogue was so much better.

Well, that wouldn't be tough now would it??

(I know - that was an easy one!)

And you know, it had EVERY single line in the movie in it - but those super corn lines were intermixed with real language.

Yeah, that helped, didn't it? Wonder if that novelization was based on an earlier version of the script, or if the author just did the best with what s/he had. The phrase "making chicken salad out of chicken poop" comes to mind.

 

openmind asked:

We need? What about, you need? (is this super corn too?)

It's certainly not as bad as any of Anakin's inane ramblings - the bit about sand and things being soft and smooth, for example!

 

Phillip023 wrote: The dialogue is the narrative. That should be sufficient.

This is quite wrong! But it explains a lot.

 

And what does it tell Moog?

Having someone else do that would essentially toss all that characterization out the window.

Jar Jar's characterization? Please. His character has neither grown or gotten more mature. Since you can take jar jar's rise to prominence with a grain of salt, why not Bail?

From a narrative standpoint it would be counter productive, and it would take too much time away from the real story to facilitate that change.

You keep saying this but you never say how. Jar Jar is on screen less than 10 minutes for the whole film and you're willing to accept everything he does! Yet you cannot accept Bail doing it - based on some time concept - because it might lengthen the movie by 5 minutes!

 

His characterization is that Jar-Jar remains child-like. That's why he is perfect for his role in AOTC. He sees things in a nieve way, which is why he thinks emergency powers are a good idea given the circumstances.

Bail didn't get this characterization in TPM, which is why it would have to now be done somehwere in AOTC. If that wasn't bad enough, after Bail made the motion, they would have to show how he turned from a fearful reactionary, into a strong willed leader of the rebellion.

You could do it, but it would take precious time away from the real narrative involving Obi-Wan, Anakin, Amidala, Yoda, and Palpatine (the important part of the story).

To me, upsetting a few people who don't want to see Jar-Jar in this role is the lesser of the two evils here.

 

Jar-Jar Binks brings depth and meaning to the saga.

That is the funniest comment I've ever read!

Mythology schmology. Bail Organa has a real connection to the OT whereas Jar-Jar doesn't. Why not take 5 minutes (and I doubt it would even take that long) to develop his character in AOTC and add to the backstory of his role in the Republic, his decision to start the rebellion against the Empire, and adopt Leia? Big picture: Bail is essential. Jar-Jar isn't.

L8r

 

Why should Lucas strip this story of it's mythological undercurrents just to please some people who don't appreciate that aspect to SW to begin with?

 

Why should Lucas strip this story of it's mythological undercurrents just to please some people who don't appreciate that aspect to SW to begin with?

So you're saying that in mythology it's the 'Fool' who unwittingly gives the big bad guy his powers?

g

 

Actually, the Fool only represents the beginning of a journey or a cycle of life. It represents someone who carelessly trots off down the path with no regard for danger or no apparent mission - the start of a quest.

The comparison between Anakin and Jar Jar was dead on. Great analogy.

That's it. The BEGINNING of a journey. Journey begun. By AOTC, we are in full swing - and he really serves no mythological purpose.

Why not take 5 minutes (and I doubt it would even take that long) to develop his character in AOTC and add to the backstory of his role in the Republic?

I bet you're right. I bet it wouldn't take 30-60 seconds.

 

The fool's role is more complicated than that, and it doesn't always manifest itself as the one who gave the bad guy his powers specifically.

 

Actually, I'm not sure if Gomer is really a believer in Jar Jar as much as he believes in Lucas.

How could he be? What I think is important is that with all the exposition of Jar Jar in TPM and this supposed mythology of the child and innocence as necessary to convey some sort of betrayal is not the story; nor is it even ancillary as it relates to anything that Jar Jar has or is doing (in AOTC).

The theme of betrayal relates to Anakin and Palpatine and their machinations with the Jedi, Padme and the Republic. From a thematic perspective, it would take less than 3 minutes out of an 2 1/2 hour film to provide any dialogue or character arc for Bail - in addition to what little he already has - to have him make the motion make sense.

What puzzles me is that with so little known about jar jar and his rise to prominence, gomer seems to accept this without hesitation, yet he cannot accept an alternative with a character that we know will play an important role in Part 3 and in the intervening years between the PT and OT.

We are going to see Bail taking it upon himself or at the behest of Padme to take care of the twins. We are already going to know that he in some way associates with the REbellion. What little addition is necessary would be so important to the story, that I'm actually surprised that Lucas missed the opportunity.

Yet, for all the talk of mythology and folklore and innocence, some people cannot accept Bail to cast the motion simply because it requires greater exposition of character. Well cry me a river!

We certainly can't let character development get in the way of CGI! lol