Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by Aaronaman, Nov 10, 2013.
Agreed. And not take dissenting opinions of a franchise as a personal insult.
Again, you assume that my statement has to be applicable to all the people. Never said that and never will. What am I supposed to do to escape your antipathy?
It's like I'm speaking Chinese and your speaking Russian or whatever. English is not my mother language, so that's probably my fault.
I've given up. I'm out.
We could all speak pig Latin!
Assuming you actually wanted an answer: How about not stereotyping entire segments of the population as well as not assuming that all people who hold a particular opinion have an agenda?
The OP of the thread indicated that Jar-Jar doesn't deserve hate. OK. Would it be possible to actually discuss Jar-Jar and what we like about Jar-Jar instead of going on and on about how other fans are mean because they don't like Jar-Jar?
I think I tried earlier but here goes again:
Jar-Jar was naive and idealistic but always had good intentions. He is partially responsible for winning the Battle of Naboo by leading Padme to negotiate with the Gungans and draw their forces into battle. They at least gave the droids a fight.
Apparently the Naboo trusted him to be a representative. Even if proposing to grant Palpatine emergency powers was stupid, he wasn't really any dumber than anyone else there.
And personally I thought the eopie fart, the tongue on the fruit and the tongue in Anakin's pod racer were funny.
I'm out of this one too. Totally incomprehensible and incoherent argument.
I must confess, however, that all this he-said/she-said Jar Jar stuff is ridiculous and wearying.
As much as I have clicked "like", quite deliberately, on a few posts made by darth-sinister in here, it remains true that, in many ways, I really agree with anakinfansince1983. I think the thrust of her remarks is, firstly, in her words, "own your opinion" -- great advice -- and secondly, stop projecting.
That said, I can't resist a little projection / speculation sometimes, particularly on the charged matter of this relatively unassuming amphibian. I mean, who knew that an orange frog in bell-bottoms could cause so much consternation? It almost begs for an explanation -- or at least some good-hearted introspection -- of some sort. And it would be remiss not to acknowledge a rather rich and storied history of bashing on the matter of poor ol' Jar Jar and how he has been used as a stick to beat his maker with.
But, you know, some of that bashing can be fun. It almost should be. As someone else candidly put it, this saga is made for leisure, first and foremost. We'd all be better off seeing, or looking for, humour in eviscerations and put-downs of Jar Jar, provided they don't get too personal. The entire SW saga, despite being threaded with profundity, is also a little silly, from another POV, and Jar Jar is something of a clarion call to get back down to basics: to rekindle our child-like, wide-eyed optimism, locate the fun of Star Wars and ourselves as sentient beings fully capable of causing amusement and being amused, and to ride those waves like there's no tomorrow.
I think that there so no Jar Jar type guy OT just made him seem out of place for Star Wars
I love Jar Jar he is the innocent buffoon with a heart of gold who aspires to more than he can handle. I find him to be a entertaining character.
I see Jar Jar as a CGI stock character and nothing more. He doesn't bother me, but he's nothing special at the same time.
I don't have a huge problem with Jar Jar mostly because I have a life outside Star Wars fandom. Still, I do think his character is weak and annoying, hard to empathize with. I also dislike that he's CGI, allthough I do appreciate Ahmed Best's role in bringing the character to life. Probably 1999 was a bit early for technology to make him look like he's actually there interacting with the characters and it feels like a poster boy for Lucas's visual revolutions, as if that was more important than an engaging story or good performances.
Still, he's not that different from 3PO for example, it's a character that failed because of the execution. He really comes off as annoying and plastic to me. His comic relief moments are cringe worthy and takes you out of the movie, it's just too cartoony and has nothing to do with what's going on, it's just complimentary, unfunny physical comedy, done by computers. Physical comedy in live action films or tv works when there's something at stake and you have the illusion of pain or discomfort. On cartoons it works when it's totally over the top and unreal as it happens on Looney Tunes and Tom & Jerry for example.
The gray area (cgi + live action) between those two is just not that effective. By the first half of the movie I didn't care about this alien clown and thought that his "presence" damaged the movie.
I also think his character wasn't handled correctly after TPM. Lucas just tossed him aside, admitting the failure. Maybe there was an opportunity in all the "hate", maybe you could change the character instead of shelving it.
Anyways, that's how I feel about Jar Jar. I don't hate him, because he's not real but I dislike his character.
If some of you think this doesn't make me a true Star Wars fan, well the that will be your little theory.
My issue with Jar Jar is that much of what he does is on accident.
I don't have a huge problem with how he talks so much (though it is a little much IMO). And I don't have a problem with him being a little dimwitted.
But then he gets appointed general arbitrarily, performs well enough during the Battle of Naboo, pretty much entirely on accident, etc.
Coming off of the OT, it was jarring to see this in the highly anticipated Star Wars movie released over a decade later.
Really it's the accidents working themselves out that really annoy me with Jar Jar, though in truth Jake Lloyd as Anakin annoyed me way more than Jar Jar ever did ("yippee!").
I would have treated Jar Jar (or even the Gungans as a whole) more like the Pakleds of Star Trek -- coming across as dim witted simpletons and being looked down upon and underestimated because of it, though in truth they are deceptively clever.
So have people like Qui-Gon look down upon him, but that when someone actually gives him a chance, he isn't as dumb as he comes across.
Pretty much. It started out because one fan had written a letter to Dark Horse Comics, where he wanted to start a petition to get Lucas away from the films, citing that he was "raping their childhood". Which means destroying it in a rather crude manner. It would go on to become a catch all for disappointment in the PT as well as anything that went against nostalgia. Later, it was mocked in an episode of "South Park" where Lucas was raping a Stormtrooper and Spielberg was raping Indiana Jones, because of the films that they made had somehow ruined their earlier works.
If the parents are trying to make their children have the same opinion as them, and this is known to happen with anything like racism and sexism, then it is not right to try and cloud their judgment. Especially when they're young enough to be influenced by their parents and older siblings.
It's not really stereotyping when quite a bit of it is true. To which I pointed out repeatedly that some of the anti arguments were more bandwagoning than honest truth. Honest truth is where someone can give an intelligent response to the subject. Bandwagoning doesn't really allow for that as those that do, don't really have anything that is a strong and coherent argument.
It's one thing to simply dislike Jar Jar. Hell, I disliked both Threepio and Artoo for years, along with the Ewoks. Even now, I consider Han something of an annoying character. But I've never felt the level of hatred that some fans have expressed toward Jar Jar.
By the way, I have never viewed Jar Jar and the Gungans in general as simpletons.
I see that we're back to bashing other fans as opposed to discussing what we like about Jar-Jar.
I apologize for ever being naive enough or optimistic enough to believe that this could be a good thread. It's possibly the worst thread in this forum in recent memory, and with a "discuss the films not the fans" rule here, I have no idea why it's still open.
We are not bashing other fans; we are bashing true fans
And on that note....