PT Who Doesn't Hate Jar Jar anymore?..

Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by lightsaver, Jan 19, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: heels1785, Seagoat
  1. drg4 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2005
    star 4
    Oh man, that link deserves its own thread. ("The Last Temptation of Binks"? "The Greatest Prequel Ever Told"? "Jar Jar Binks Superstar"?)

    Anyone care to draw straws?
  2. Sistros Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2010
    star 6
    nevemind, i won't take the bait and be offended

  3. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 5
    Don't forget "Jar Jar Binks of Otoh Gunga" and "The Passion of the Gungan"!

    As for your question:

    Ack! Not really!

    Per the article's description:

    I would contend that Jar Jar functions in a somewhat similar fashion, revealing the inherently bigoted and presumptuous nature of human thought and behaviour in general.

    To be honest, I was STUNNED when I saw that art piece. It IMMEDIATELY reminded me of Jar Jar. I am not saying there is any conscious or intended connection between the two, but I was, nonetheless, quite touched.

    Consider it this way:

    http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/08/28/frog1.jpg

    http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/6/65/JarJar-Carbonite.jpg

    What, fundamentally, is the difference?

    Good man.

    Two points, however:

    1) It sounds like you already took the bait.

    2) It wasn't -- and isn't -- bait.

    * * *

    All of this, ultimately, is art.

    While I issued a playful warning, I am not interested in massaging mediocre religious bigotries.

    I offered the link as a portal for deeper understanding and celebration of the artistic spirit.

    If you see my link as "bait", you've really said more about yourself than anything I intended.

    * * *

    I guess, if religious people -- those belonging to a recognized creed or hardcore Star Wars fans -- got their way, there wouldn't be much room for creative expression, wit or irony.

    As the wonderfully erudite H.L. Mencken once put it, "A sense of humor always withers in the presence of the messianic delusion, like justice and truth in front of patriotic passions."

    * * *

    So, again, my hat goes off to those bold artists who put their neck on the line and maintain a sense of balance and proportionality where sacred mythologies and societal mores are concerned.
  4. Sistros Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2010
    star 6
    so it was a bait or it wasn't?

    [face_thinking]

    and not at all, Simpsons can do religious humour very well and I don't get offended at that, I guess it depends on intent, from your posts you seem to suggest that any type of religion is silly (please correct me -nicely without a hint of "i've just owned you" or sarcasm- if i'm wrong), thefore in your opinion is ok to be mocked, however when someone critisizes star wars, there seems to be concensus on these people knowing "nothing about art" and not very intelligent.

    Just a thought to consider.

    To keep on topic and not to derail this thread, I neither care for or dislike Jar Jar.




  5. StampidHD280pro Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2005
    star 4
    Just as a general defense to an attack spurred by a cartoonish depiction of a cross: The picture is not obscene nor is it particularly offensive. I'm a bit of an atheist believer though, so nothing much offends me, but we live in a world where EVERYONE is going to disagree with you, so try not to take it so seriously. Especially when it's not even an attack on something you like. I think most of Crygenic's most heated replys are in response to people who are quick to say *they* know more about art and have the correct view, while Cryogenic is actually open to many critical posts and otherwise different views, usually more than I am.
  6. Sistros Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2010
    star 6
    Just as a general defense to an attack spurred by a cartoonish depiction of a cross: The picture is not obscene nor is it particularly offensive



    opinions vary ;)
  7. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 5
    It was NOT a bait.

    My satirical point was that you had ALREADY deemed my post, in part or in whole, a "bait", and that, contrary to your assertion, you had clearly taken offence; or, rather, taken it upon yourself to take offence.

    I've noticed that this tactic is often employed by religious people. When you don't want to discuss something, but do, at least, seek to disparage the other person and rubbish a line of discussion or enquiry, play the "offence" card. That way, you can make a sweeping accusation and retreat without explaining yourself, whilst making it appear to the gallery that you've said everything that COULD ever be said (which, I guess, goes right along with the core of absolutism inherent to religious thought, religious commandments, and religious conceptions of the world and everything in it).

    Who are YOU to say what is and isnt a bait from another person? Do you know my mind? Have you considered alternatives? The answer appears to be a firm "no" in both cases. If you want my problem with religion in a nutshell (concision is always good, right?), it's this: a lack of imagination. By being so hasty to discard other ways of seeing the world (and, in another nutshell, THAT is art), to the point of saying, "this conversation is not only invalid, but obscene" (the "offence" card again), you are being as absurdly dogmatic, blinkered and close-minded as anyone can possibly be.

    Also, more fundamentally, when you claim to be offended -- especially when you disingenuously claim you're avoiding offence as a rhetorical means of saying the opposite: i.e., "I'm offended" -- you are not just making a statement about yourself. You are also (falsely) impugning the other person for some imaginary crime they haven't committed. In my book, that is pretty egregious. And in yours, too. For, in the Bible, one of the commandments is, "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour", is it not? So, please, sir, be consistent with your own beliefs, and DO NOT accuse me of something for which you have no proof, other than what your reactive religious mind is telling you to believe.

    I'd urge you to ruminate on what I've just said. Incidentally, do you agree with suppression and censorship; and, for that matter, the mixing of religion and politics? Because, if you've read that article, you'll know it's reporting on the censorious -- and, if it was in America, and not Italy, the unconstitutional -- actions of a political leader (a "regional governor") who objected to a piece of art by striking (dereliction of duty) and calling it "a disgusting piece of trash" (an opinion that purports to speak for more people than just the person making it). Unsurprisingly, as also reported by the article, the Vatican wrote an official letter of support for this raging authority figure. Personally, I find that deeply disturbing. The SW equivalent -- because, yes, this is actually about JAR JAR BINKS, lest we forget -- would be for a a state governor, or even a high-ranking official in the White House, to object to Jar Jar as offensive (to black people, let's say, since this anti-Jar Jar meme actually exists) and petition the Supreme Court for an injunction against the PT. That time, really, has come and gone, but it COULD have happened, in theory (still unlikely, but it is analogous with the situation described in the article). You'd be happy with that, would you? It wouldn't be intolerant? It wouldn't be discriminatory? It wouldn't be un-American and un-democratic?

    So, I guess, if you want a second objection from me, there is something else I find troubling about religion: its need, through its adherents, to constantly have its way, running roughshod over laws and ethics, and the dissenting opinions and beliefs of other people (even -- and especially, more often than not -- other rel
  8. Sistros Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2010
    star 6
    I fundermentially disagree with almost everything you said, and would rebuttle nearly every line, however this is not the thread for that, neither was this thread a religious one to begin with, which was my original point in the first place (not todays post)

    so I think it's best we part as gentlemen and agree to disagree [face_peace]
  9. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 5
    Fair enough.

    Not in general, no.

    My link was not entered into the thread to make this into a "religious" thread, per se. There is, however, a thin line between art and religion. One could even make the case that religion is art in overdrive.

    So, the link was provided, and exists, as tribute to that thin line, and -- as I've said -- as something for others to latch onto, to explore the art of Jar Jar and reactions to him in more detail; in a way, to explore the nature of art, itself.

    I realize, in 2011, this is still a contentious thing: to talk about Jar Jar in serious, academic terms (even if it's a kind of soft-core seriousness; which, I think, by and large, it better fits Jar Jar being).

    Ultimately, the link is just a sidebar; and your objection to it (as well as my responses), exponentially trivial.

    Sure. [face_peace]
  10. AmiraMalicious Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 2011
    his voice is just irritating, otherwise, he does have some funny lines and he acts as a comic relief.
  11. VadersPappy Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2009
    star 1
    Cryo

    I wanted to respond to your reply to my post in the thread about possibly modifying Jar Jar with the re-release of TPM.

    You stated that Jar Jar's role was to be reduced in the 2nd and 3rd movies, likening him to the reduction of screentime for old Ben in the OT movies (I'm paraphrasing your response so please correct me if I am off base). I think you are undervaluing Ben's role in the OT and overstating Jar Jar's in the PT. Ben still has an essential role in the OT even after his death - He tells Luke to go to Dagobah to train with Yoda, he tries to stop Luke from attempting to save his friends on Bespin, and confirms that Vader is Luke's father. JJ does not have any significant role after TPM. Sure, he recommends the Senate vote Palpatine emergency powers, but that seemed like Lucas giving him a bone more than anything.

    Imagine how much better it would have been if Bail Organa had been duped into initiating that vote. His motivation for creating the Rebel Alliance might be due to his realization of the mistake he made. But that's a discussion for another thread.

    Also, would Lucas have spent the time and money to create a digital character only to reduce his roles in the next two movies? Of course not, unless even he realized the character was a mistake. Even his episodes on TCW are brutal due to him.
  12. Alexrd Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 7, 2009
    star 5
    He created him as digital character for TPM. His use in the next two movies is irrelevant.

    You have no basis for that argument.

    In your opinion, only.
  13. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 5
    Hey, VP! :)

    Sure thing. I just think we should present the URL of that thread for clarity/future reference -->

    http://boards.theforce.net/prequel_trilogy/b10669/32048325/

    I made that basic analogy, yes. And I think it holds.

    Yeah, I see where you're coming from, but it's a bit random, in my view, to say that Jar Jar recommending the Senate vote Palpatine emergency powers seems "like Lucas giving him a bone", while you don't characterize the Obi-Wan situation the same way (and why not? -- Alec Guinness's Jedi helper was meant to survive ANH, but Lucas then killed Obi-Wan off; and Guinness, reputedly, was only willing to do cameos, but he *was* willing to do cameos, at least, so why not bring an actor of his calibre back?). Also, since Obi-Wan appears as a flickering spirit in the sequels, everything he says to Luke and Yoda can be construed, vaguely, as them having a bit of back-and-forth in their own mind, and clarifying things with their internal dialogue, e.g.: LUKE: "I'd like to believe Vader was my father, because at least that means he's still alive, but I'm having doubts about everything." OBI-WAN side of LUKE: "Well, yes, he was your father, but you're gonna have to kill him." I mean, hell, Jar Jar actually performs a similar function with Anakin, albeit, briefly, when he contests Anakin's assertion that Padme hardly recognized him. Also, if it weren't for Jar Jar making that motion when he did, it's possible that Anakin (and Obi-Wan and Padme) would never have gotten off Geonosis alive.

    I can imagine the story spinning off in a different direction, yeah, but not automatically a "better" one, let alone a "much better" one. But what would be Bail's motivation for helping to start that vote in the first place? Would you have him as militarily-minded, on Palpatine's payroll for a time, trying to satisfy a disagreement among other senators (perhaps the Alderaan system is part of a "sector" of planets with more than its share of war-willing senators?) and having his hand tied? Just what? Because, I think, that's rather a bigger hurdle to get over than you have realized. As far as the film goes, Bail is deeply opposed to the army, so you'd have to alter his character there. Also, can he not be atoning, anyway, in light of the fact that he, seemingly, never said anything to dissuade Jar Jar after Jar Jar looks glum as a result of that little ruse Palpatine and his aide play? Couldn't Bail have picked up on what was going on there, or at least shot their rhetoric down (same outcome), given his apparent eloquence and strong disdain for war? You must also stop to consider what George Lucas is saying about political ambition with Jar Jar. Jar Jar is not nakedly ambitious, per se, but he appears to have an underlying desire to be taken seriously and accepted by peers. Look at his child-like expression of happiness/relief after the Senate shows its approval for his
  14. VadersPappy Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2009
    star 1
    Sorry, but the importance of Ben Kenobi in the last two OT movies is much greater then Jar Jar's in the last two PT movies. I don't think Luke in his head would have come to the realization that a Jedi Master is still alive and on Dagobah. It's not equal to Jat Jar saying to Anakin Padme remembers him. That line could have been taken out of the movie and it wouldn't have changed one iota.

    I also don't think it's necessary to have a character be the "light" side of the PT. Anakin serves that role in TPM and as the movies got darker the need for a "jester" type character would have been reduced. Besides, the two droids could fulfill any silly humor parts.

    My issue with Jar Jar has nothing to do with the technology part of the character. I understand what he represents for ILM and that the work on him would ultimately lead to a digital Yoda fighting Dooku. I think the character itself was the problem.

    PS My point about Bail is that Palpy could have manipulated him into introducing the bill to give the chancellor emergency powers. His guilt over that decision would lead Bail to start the Rebel Alliance. It would have meant changing the Bail character a little bit (as you pointed out) but I think it would have explained why Bail started the Alliance.
  15. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 5
    How do you know that Luke didn't have some inkling through the Force? He'd recently been attacked by a violent cave-dwelling creature, then woke up and bust his way out of the creature's abode not without some distress, and he aimlessly trundled as far as he could -- probably cold, starved and dehydrated -- before collapsing in the snow. His delirium could have opened up a purer state for a brief time: a gateway to mystical insight. Moreover, when he lands on Dagobah, he comments that it feels like something out of a dream, and since TESB shadows AOTC, a viewer can be left with the impression that Luke perceived where to go in advance, just like Anakin dreamed about his mother weeks or months before the visions began to turn graphic/violent. Jar Jar doesn't tell Anakin that Padme remembers him. He just tells him that Padme is happier than he's seen her in a long time. Functionally, you can see this as Anakin's child-like self reassuring the more jaded, adult part of his mind, and his adult part struggling to believe his younger, more open self as he yearns for reassurances that are increasingly perceived as deficient.

    I submit to you an even more radical notion: Jar Jar isn't just the "light" side of the PT; he's the "light" side of Star Wars. As Lucas said at the time of making TPM, Star Wars had never had an all-out comedic character till Jar Jar, and he clearly wanted to introduce one in the series overture. The droids don't really qualify as adequate substitute for any number of reasons: 1) They're mechanical, not biological. 2) Their humour generally works better when they're playing off each other, meaning, for them to reach their full potential, you need both on the screen, and not just one or the other. 3) The droids aren't all that supple, and while they lend themselves to slapstick, their clunky, bric-a-brac selves can't compare to a floppy-eared amphibian shrieking aloud and tripping over himself. 4) Jar Jar, yes, is amphibious, which means he has a strong dualistic nature: an ideal means of highlighting the limitations of human beings (and the human Jedi protagonists) and suggesting much about the scope and lure of the larger SW story and the way it both satirizes human frailty and hints at transcendence. Finally, 5) Jar Jar has a very child-like persona, and is even more dimly regarded than droids, which allows Lucas to pivot around and build on a cavalcade of underlying themes and motifs, which carry across the entire saga. Y'see, there's humour and there's humour, just as there are characters and there are characters. Diversity, richness, scope and invention. These are watch words within SW and without.

    Yes, and you are, of course, entitled to that opinion. I just don't agree. Jar Jar, for me, is a "home run" of a character, and I enjoy his various antics and mannerisms in the PT, and the general unease other characters tend to show around him (contrasted some distance by Padme and the general warmth she extends to him). He is a confounding element: a much-needed "fool" who brings new depths to Star Wars and explodes out some of its compacted meanin
  16. VadersPappy Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2009
    star 1
    So Luke, in his delirium as you call it, is able to discover the name Yoda and that this Yoda is the JM who instructed Kenobi. Quite the ability to see into the future. Perhaps he should have gone further in the future and realize throwing away one's lightsabe against a Sith is not the best idea.

    In all your defense of JJ, you haven't (unless it was other places) said what humorous actions or thoughts that he had I am missing. I'm sorry, but annoying other people (as I see it, not making them uneasy aroud him) does not make him a necessary character in the saga.

    In addition, I disagree with your characterizing Jar Jar's antics as child-like. Acting (or being) stupid is not the same as acting (or being) child-like.

  17. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 5
    Actually, I would have thought that Luke discerning the name Yoda, Yoda's flight to Dagobah, and Yoda being the Jedi Master who (partially) instructed Obi-Wan would be him glimpsing the past, not the future. It's an academic point, though, since Yoda later tells Luke -- and the same film quite clearly demonstrates -- that, with the Force, one is able to see the past and the future. Luke purposefully threw away his lightsaber against the Emperor because he made a conscious choice to not fight his father and give into the Emperor's mind games. That angered the Emperor, destabilizing his authority, and opened the door to Anakin's redemption. So, er, maybe Luke's idea was rather good, after all.

    I didn't see how citing "humourous actions or thoughts" was germane to the discussion. You mentioned the droids; I explained how Jar Jar, as a character creation, differs from them, and why droids, instead of Jar Jar, simply wouldn't do. There is no need for me to explain how or why Jar Jar is necessary in any more detail than I previously have. In fact, if you look through this thread, never mind the forum, you may encounter some of the explanations you seek.

    I have never characterized Jar Jar's actions as "stupid". To me, he is very child-like, on any number of levels. That said, I also see some more adult and sophisticated qualities in Jar Jar; some of which I tried to elucidate in earlier posts. Let's leave our little encounter exactly where it now sits.
  18. Nagai Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 15, 2010
    star 3
    Can we say that the gungans had been redeemed even if Jar Jar is still an idiot?
  19. ardavenport Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2004
    star 4
    I never hated Jar Jar. He has his moments, but when I first saw him, I didn't think he was all that funny; I just shrugged; Jar Jar is from the same guy who thought Ewoks were a good idea, too. My cousin loved Jar Jar was great because he was so politically incorrect, and we're both from that 50+ generation that saw ANH in the theater when it first came out.
  20. Arawn_Fenn Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    Speaking of Gungans, I think some familiarity with Brian Blessed's body of work is necessary to fully appreciate Boss Nass.
  21. GeneralCeel Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Nov 4, 2005
    star 2
    Boss Nass (and Brian Blessed) is the man...er...or Gungan.
  22. obi-rob-kenobi4 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2007
    star 4
    I just got back from TPM 3D for my 3rd time and everyone laughed at jar-jar for almost all of his gags through out the movie for the 3rd time in a row. General audiences and normal people just seem to always enjoy him. He teaches a great lesson of tolerance for kids to not judge those who are different. His character is a big part of the underlying theme in the movie of symbiotic relationships between all living things. Its beautiful, its thought provoking, its funny, its innocent.

    I am now sure that the jar-jar hate fad is and always was nothing more than hardcore geeks taking a movie way to seriously which later turned into a forced internet meme.
  23. GeneralCeel Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Nov 4, 2005
    star 2

    I'm not sure if the hate can be attributed to "hardcore geeks." I always think of those of us who really love Star Wars, fantasy and sci fi, for more than just the flash-bang excitement on the surface as the real hardcore geeks. People overly concerned with what is "cool," and being "cool." Well they are not very hardcore at all... The real hardcore fans... we stick with Jar Jar, and The Phantom Menace even when its not socially acceptable to do so...
  24. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 5
    Beautifully put, GeneralCeel. The real hardcore fans, as you say, are those that stick with the things they love, through thick and thin. The hardcores have forgotten what is to be hardcore; but the real hardcores know. On that note, I've started to give serious thought to getting a (small) Jar Jar tattoo on the top of one arm. I'm not a big fan of tattoos, but for Jar Jar, I am coming round to the idea of making an exception. It would have to be discreet, though. Not because I'm ashamed of Jar Jar, but because I'm uneasy with the idea of body art, for me, personally, that is; so it's a small tattoo or it's nothing. I would like to give a small part of my body over to this unique Gungan, though. But I'll have to stew on it for a while. I love the character every which way around; and I think he's an important reminder about the need to maintain an upbeat outlook in life. I can't think of a more fitting subject to adorn myself with. Naturally, to each, their own.
Moderators: heels1785, Seagoat
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.