Why should an audience have to

Okay, I think this topic has lost any focus it might have had. So, hawk doesn't like Jar Jar. Everyone understand this? Good. MOVING ON.

 

i dont think lucas ment for half the world to hat jar-jar, and obviously he must play an important role in the saga, or else he wouldant be in there,
i liked him, and think that after ep 2, and 3 many of you jar-jar haters will change your tone.

 

The characters are suppossed to tolerate JJ(some do, some don't). The audience should feel sympathy for him b/c of this.

 

You've got to tolerate, all those people that you hate,
I'm not in love with you, but I won't hold that against you...
Guess who I saw last night?

Anyway, it's not about "having to tolerate an annoying charactere." Jar Jar isn't annoying, on the grounds that not everyone is annoyed by him. Therefore, it's your way of dealing with him that makes you annoyed.

If you look at a film looking for something to moan about, then Jar Jar's got it. He's different to what we're used to, he's different to anything inthe OT (and therefore, our expectations), and he's different to anything we've seen in real life. People don't usually like things that are different.

Your focus truly does determine your reality. If you're looking for Star Wars magic (or at least, when I'm looking for what I see as Star Wars magic) then it's there in Jar Jar. If you're looking at Jar Jar to see if you can tell that he's CGI, then you'll see flaws in the CGI. (I don't know how these people watch the Wampas in ESB, the Rancor in ROTJ, the plastic masks, the stop-motion animation, etc etc.)

Your focus determines your reality.

And in that vein, I'd like to echo GMJ's post of 10/2 4:56pm.

>>>>But why design a creature to see if he can get under people's skins? To teach them a lesson? If that is so, then what would happen if he didn't create JJ to see this result? Would that ruin the movie? Of course not. It would just make the movie more enjoyable for a wider audience.

Why make a film in the first place?

If you don't have an emotional reaction to a film, then you might as well not watch it.

It's not as if the story's finished, is it? What happens when you see a character you really like die a heroic death? How about one you really hate? How about one you couldn't care less about?

See what I mean?

 

The assumption by some is that JJ is in the film as some sort of "intolerance" lesson. Sorry but we have no evidence from either GL or RM that supports that theory.

On the contrary, GL stated that JJ is in the film to appeal to small children. Period. If anyone thinks he's in it for something more, please post your point of reference.

 

On the contrary, GL stated that JJ is in the film to appeal to small children.

I've heard him say that this is a reason for Jar Jar but not the only reason (and, no, I don't have a quote to back that up nor do I have the time to find one.)

To answer Hawk's question, there's no need for an audience to tolerate an unlikable character in a film. In fact, the solution is quite simple: Don't watch the damn movie. If you truly find a character intolerable then obviously the movie is not for you.

 

Actually I have a Conspiracy Theory abnout why Jar Jar was so annoying (to some). I think that GL, ILM and company were concerned about having the audience accept a cgi character as 'real', so they decided to make him really annoying. The theory is that if people have such a strong reaction to a character, they won't even realize that they're accepting the character's 'realness' on the same level as the human beings in the film.

Of course, like as with all good conspiracy theories, I have absolutely no proof that this is true.

 

But like all good conspiracy theories, it spookily fits the facts. Nice one, I will use that at posh dinner parties and pass it off as my own.

 

Darth23:

Actually, that does have some validity. The fact that people react so srongly to a make believe character is amazing. Would people have responded the same way if Jar Jar was only a character in a book, or one in an animated cartoon? Probably not, because people are able to more easily accept that those things don't exists and are not worth investing time in worrying about. However, Jar Jar is so real that some people go overboard trying to convince themselves not to accept him that their vitrolic behavior leaves all bounds of rationality!

As I've said before, just accept that you don't like him and get on with your life.

 

I've heard him say that this is a reason for Jar Jar but not the only reason (and, no, I don't have a quote to back that up nor do I have the time to find one.)

I figured that would the response I would get.

I've been asking this same question for over a year and to date not one person in this forum can support, with a quote from GL, this whole intolerance claim.

 

About the conspiracy theory: I don't buy it. It has a nice tone to it, but the fact that people are dreaming up cartoonish ways for him to die just related to the fact that those people view him as a cartoon, not as a real person.

I've been asking this same question for over a year and to date not one person in this forum can support, with a quote from GL, this whole intolerance claim.

TJ, I know what you're saying. Gomer tried to pull this argument on me yesterday, and it took about a dozen posts for him to admit that he made it up and has never heard GL say that.

 

You know, the fact that many fans feel that Star Wars is more than just a bunch of well made, entertaining movies is not only a sad commentary on the SW culture, but the primary reason behind just about every heated exchange we see on TF.N.



Just an obversation.

EDIT: I've been asking this same question for over a year and to date not one person in this forum can support, with a quote from GL, this whole intolerance claim.

Perhaps, because, like the movie itself, he was meant merely to entertain. Could be? Could be?

 

...but the fact that people are dreaming up cartoonish ways for him to die just related to the fact that those people view him as a cartoon, not as a real person.

You still hold to your claim that inventing ways of killing a fictional character is rational behavior?

 

Do I need to explain the Wile E. Coyote scenario again? Maybe we should discuss the people in the theater who were rooting for Darth Maul to get killed, even though he didn't do anything!

 

This whole thing is subjective. Not everyone is annoyed by the same things and some people don't get annoyed as easily as others. For us who like Jar Jar, we don't even think about it that way because we don't perceive him as being an annoying annoyance or whatnot.

 

That's right S_J, we sith get a bad rap because of Maul, but what everyone fails to realize is that the Jedis pulled their sabers on Maul, Maul was just defending himself. His only crime was mistaking the hanger bay doors for the men's restroom. And that scene were Maul supposedly jumps off the speeder and attacks QGJ -- wrong. He was just joy riding and didn't see the jedi, and almost crashed into him, he tried to make a course correction, lost control, and went flying off his speeder and just happened to make a graceful landing in front of QGJ. Somewhere in the middle of all the confusion, his lightaber appeared in his hand and ignited, but that was just coinidence! Natural, QGJ thought he was attacking him, so he attacked Maul in return.

 

So you still think inventing ways of killing a fictional character is rational? I'm not talking about slapstick cartoons but a psychological desire to cause real pain and suffering to something that doesn't exist. You've really gone off the deep-end if you try to defend this behavior. It's not funny but rather a sad commentary on just how seriously people take movies these days and the subsequent inability to seperate fact from fiction.

 

The inability to separate fact from fiction? Like wondering why people invent ways to kill a fictional character and then thinking it's some kind of irrational psychotic behavior?

jar jar is slapstick, no different from Wile E. Coyote or Roger Rabbit. They are all cartoons. If thinking up new ways to kill Wile E. Coyote is irrational, then the people at Warner Bros must be off the deep end!

jar jar is just a cartoon in a movie. I personally don't make up ways to kill him. If someone else does, and it is humorous, then I will laugh. I'm all grown up, and I'm not going to suddenly become crazy for laughing at their joke.

Now remember this, it's important. TPM IS JUST A MOVIE. Don't take it too seriously.

 

"On the contrary, GL stated that JJ is in the film to appeal to small children."

The whole point of him saying that is because we all have an inner-child...or an inner-Jar Jar as I like to think of it. Jar Jar is for anybody who understands him. He isn't just expwessly for wittle kiddies.

*EDIT: spelling

 

"Of course, like as with all good conspiracy theories, I have absolutely no proof that this is true."

A good conspiracy theory is an unprovable one. If you can prove it, THEY must have screwed up! (this is the point where someone calls me Jerry)

 

"then the people at Warner Bros must be off the deep end!"

That's why they call them Looney Toons!

*EDIT: spelling

 

If thinking up new ways to kill Wile E. Coyote is irrational, then the people at Warner Bros must be off the deep end!

I guess you missed the part where I said, "I'm not talking about slapstick cartoons but a psychological desire to cause real pain and suffering to something that doesn't exist." When the Warner Bros. crew depict Wile E. Coyote falling off a cliff, it's played for laughs. When someone creates a video showing Jar Jar getting shot in the face, it's a representation of the frustration they feel for the character and a depiction of what they would like to do to the character if he was real. As opposed to a rational response such as, oh, I don't know, TOLERANCE!, their conscious desire is to actually harm and kill the character.

The fact that you find this behavior defensible is equally disturbing.

 

I guess you missed the part where I said, "I'm not talking about slapstick cartoons but a psychological desire to cause real pain and suffering to something that doesn't exist."

Here's the problem, your not talking about cartoons, S_J is. S_J clearly stated that to him, JJ was no more real than Wile E. Coyote. Obviously, to you, MM, he is more real than that, and so you see S_J's point of view disturbing. What we hae here are two entirely different precepts of reality.

 

Whatever you have to think to make it "okay" I guess.

 

Okay on the topic of thinking up ways to kill a fictional character...Do you ever play video games? Or computer games?

For example I play EverQuest (online RPG), I am constantly tring to think up ways to "kill" fictional things faster and easier. Does that make me crazy or off the deep end? I think not.