Why should an audience have to

Yeah Im not a Jar Jar fan, and no its not due to his goofy appearence, I just don't like him. Some people didn't like Luke and alot of people don't like 3P0, personalities clash, its the way things are.

I think GL created Jar Jar to be funny, when he wrote alot of this commedy for JJ, he was probably snickering thinking 'Oh man the audience is going to love this' he was wrong. I think he could have done a better job with TPM, but thats not important here. I try to keep in mind its been 16 years since his last movie, and I know GL is a revisionist, he will look back on things and think it would have gone better like this, a good reason why we saw the Special Edition.

I'm trying to figure Mr Lucas out, he is genious, but sometimes I think hes lost focus on whats the story here. Not meaning to bash the EU but take a good look at it, especially the Young and Junior Jedi Knights, that stuff shouldn't be canon, its ridiculous. Enough with that!

IMO I think Lucas has changed alot over the past 16 years, perhaps if he wrote TPM and released in 1987 or something like that, we'd see a different over all story line. That of course is just my opinion.

 

What if he meant for people to really hate him?

 

Would it have hurt the film if JJ was a little more serious, he was actually funny, and he didn't defy gravity? I think not. I think it would have improved the film somewhat.

 

It doesn't hurt to have him the way he is though.

 

Gomer I appreciate what you are saying. I like reading your posts.

 

I think GL created JJ to be funny as well but he was probably the only person at Lucasfilm who didn't realise just how unfunny most of his antics were. I think by the time GL watched the first run of the film he realised he had to start a campaign for JJ just to justify the sillyness and that's where all this krap about inventing him to teach people about tolerance comes from. Basically he's an experiment that went beyond control, a Frankenstein, "a chracter best at home in Shreks Swamp than in Star Wars" is my most recent definition. Yeah, he had a few hits but he missed far too many times and those stray bullets killed many in the audience! I think it's safe to say that despite all the Lucas Disciples defending of the character even GL realised his mistake and his going to show quite a bit less of the fool in the next chapter.

What I can't abide by is this "Bend over and receive all GL is about to give" attidude to SW that some people have replied with on Hawkes thread. Man, don't these people have any self respect or opinion, you don't owe GL anything, filmaking is a business of reciprocation, we both give to recieve, it's not all one way traffic, you do not have to accept everything he throws your way and be thankfull. If it looks like, feels like and smells like it, then chances are it is what Jar Jar stepped in!

 

Yeah, if Lucas was trying to make Jar-Jar appealing to everyone then he really messed up.

But if he was creating Jar-Jar to represent our own social fears, knowing full well it would cause intolerant people to go ape, then I think he really hit the mark.

 

My little sister likes Jar Jar she laughs her head off when she watches TPM. That's enough reason to justify him to me.

 

I think youre on to it there. Jar-Jar was created for the little kids, as I have said a million times, the Star Wars Kids stuff sucks ass. The story lines piss adults off when were told its canon, yes youre heroes from the OT are blundering idiots, but their kids can do anything type of scenario.

O well. I agree with the comment of many SW fans have the attitude of bendover and receive what his highness GL is about to give. Heaven forbid somebody not like something. Its especially worse in the EU, alot of that stuff makes Jar Jar and TPM look like the greatest stories ever told.

 

>>>>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

Guess Qui Gon didn't cheat on the dice roll either then, because there's no GWL quote to prove it.
And Palpatine isn't Sidious.
And the green lightsaber doesn't symbolically connect Qui Gon and Luke.
etc. etc. etc.

Please post evidence to the contrary- that Lucas or Mcallum has specifically said that this was NOT the intention.

Or isn't there anything to verify that either?


[EDIT]
I wanted Yoda to be the traditional kind of character you find in fairy tales and mythology. And that character is usually a frog or a wizened old man on the side of the road. The hero is going down the road and meets this poor and insignificant person. The goal or the lesson is for the hero to learn to respect everybody and to pay attention to the poorest person because that's where the key to his success will be. I wanted Yoda to be perceived at first as a funny critter, not as the most powerful of all the Jedi. I wanted him to be the exact opposite of what you might expect, since the Jedi is based on a philosophical idea rather than a physical idea.
- The Annotated Screenplays (Laurent Bouzerou), 1997

 

And that's the bottom line... Cos George Lucas said so.

 

I think GL created JJ to be funny as well but he was probably the only person at Lucasfilm who didn't realise just how unfunny most of his antics were.

Why do some folks find it difficult to accept the fact that a lot of people actually do like Jar Jar? I do. Go-Mer-Tonic does. There are quite a few folks in this forum who like Jar Jar just the way he is. Just because a handful of you so vehemently dislike him does not mean that Lucas was forced to "justify" this "out of control experiment."

Jar Jar is a tremendous success in that he is the first totally CG main character in a live action film and that he has received such a strong emotional reaction from both fans and critics. A virtual character was able to illicite real emotions from the audience. That's significant.

 

All of this "Jar-Jar represents the outsider within all of is" crap makes me hate his character even more, because it was extremely poorly done.

 

"What if he meant for people to really hate him?" - Go-Mer-Tonic

This is my take on it exactly. The onlny person in the movie who acknowledged JJ even existed was Qui-Gon. Obi and Ani pretty much ignored him. The queen only spoke to him once, and in the single conversation she learned how to save the whole planet!

They guy no one would talk to and was generally annoying was the one who provided the key for saving the population of Naboo. GL killed 2 birds here. JarJar was a plot device and something for the kiddies.

And you want to argue that he didn't do it on purposed, thats irrelevent in the end. That was the point of JarJar. He he just tagged along, silent, no one would have minded him and the signifigance of he later contribution is lost. He had to be smething[/b]. He couldn't be mean. So he was a dufus that was under-appreciated where ever he went because he was clumsy and foolish. Hell, he might have even been pulling stunts intentionally to get attention. Plenty of kids who feel neglected do that.

JarJar was very similar to Yoda when he was first seen. They talked strangly, acted strangly, and pestered a main character (Luke lost his patience with him when he was stealing his supplies.) In both cases, a character who was initailly assumed to be solely comic relief ended up contributing to the success of the heros. The only difference is that Yoda was a hit and JJ wasn't. I'm sure plenty of children loved Yoda when ESB was first released. He was aiming for the same result, tried a couple of different things, and just failed.

Everyone may have different opinions as to why JJ flopped. And thats fine. But I think that the argument that JJ was pointless suggests that some people are just too lazy to analyze the film for themselves. Hate him all you like, he isn't my favorite by far, but he did do something other than goof around.

 

Gay-LenKenobi-

There are several problems with your assumptions concerning JJB's relevance. Go-Mer and I have gone around several times about these very points.

This is my take on it exactly. The onlny person in the movie who acknowledged JJ even existed was Qui-Gon. Obi and Ani pretty much ignored him. The queen only spoke to him once, and in the single conversation she learned how to save the whole planet!

Qui-Gon is also abusive towards him throughout the film. He insults him when he first meets him, physically abuses and chastises him on Tattooine, and ignores him after reaching Coruscant. There really isn't a character who treats him with respect - he is a means to an end for Amidala. Do we ever hear her say "Thank you?" No, all we hear is the imperious command that she needs his help. If there were a message about "tolerance" to be found, it would be necessary for a principal protagonist to realize his/her error, and act to correct it (and thereby drawing the moral out for the audience to see and understand).

They guy no one would talk to and was generally annoying was the one who provided the key for saving the population of Naboo. GL killed 2 birds here. JarJar was a plot device and something for the kiddies.

The thing is, JJB isn't directly responsible for saving Naboo, and a very compelling argument could be made that he isn't responsible for saving them at all.

And you want to argue that he didn't do it on purposed, thats irrelevent in the end. That was the point of JarJar. He he just tagged along, silent, no one would have minded him and the signifigance of he later contribution is lost. He had to be smething[/b]. He couldn't be mean. So he was a dufus that was under-appreciated where ever he went because he was clumsy and foolish. Hell, he might have even been pulling stunts intentionally to get attention. Plenty of kids who feel neglected do that.

It is probably appropriate at this point to develop the arguments I alluded to above, in light of your statements here.

1. JJB teaches the queen how to save the planet - this is not specifically what you said, but it does concisely summarize the argument as it has appeared in these boards before; it is still wrong. JJB does mention to the queen that the Gungans have a "grand army," a statement which is nebulous in its causality, at best. The reason for its questionability is a question of necessary causation - could the queen have found out this information through other reasonable means? In light of SW technology, yes she could. A surface scan of the planet could be used to locate the Gungans after they had fled Otoh Gunga (e.g., Luke's "old" X-Wing technology was able to tell him a significant amount of information about Dagobah while flying blind in the upper atmosphere; there is no reason to assume that Amidala's ship could not have done the same (esp. if the Force were guiding them, a la Qui-Gon at the beginning of the movie)). The only concern here is the question of time - they are admittedly under pressure to act quickly, and thus JJB did provide help. Providing help, however, is indirect causation at best - it makes about as much sense to say that Qui-Gon is responsible for saving them, because he dragged JJB along with them at the beginning, or that Valorum is responsible, because he sent QGJ and OB1 at the beginning of the film. If this type of causation is pressed, one could make the argument that Palpatine is partially responsible for the liberation of Naboo because he engineered the situation, thus "causing" Valorum to send the Jedi, and thus "causing" QGJ to pick up JJB, and thus "causing" the queen to be made aware of the Gungan army.


2. JJB is responsible for uniting the two societies - again, not explicitly what you said, but a summary of an argument repeatedly made on these boards. It suffers from the same type of nebulous "justification" as the indirect causation argument. There is no evidence given that there was any intention on JJB's behalf to sa

 

"Why should an audience have to "tolerate" a character?"

To answer the topic question . .

THEY DON'T.

They have several options.

1. They can walk out of the theater if they are so offended by the character that the entire film is ruined.

2. They can avoid buying a ticket for that particular film and seeing it again.

3. When merchandise pertaining to this character is sold to the public, they can spend their money on other items.

4. They can choose not to buy the video/DVD version of the film when it is released.

5. Instead of going to a website to discuss/complain about that particular charecter, they can spend their time doing things they might actually enjoy.

So . .

How many of you who

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE

Jar Jar Binks actually managed to do all five?

-Otis

 

Part of the problem is that most of us who don't like JJB don't actively HAAAAAAAAAAAAATE him, Otis. More often than not, we're told that we do by those who enjoy the character. Doing so is more than a little intellectually dishonest. There are also many more options than the rather limited list that you gave.

 

Well said QS.

Go mir

"But if he was creating Jar-Jar to represent our own social fears, knowing full well it would cause intolerant people to go ape, then I think he really hit the mark."

Fisrt question, why the heck did Lucas do that? It is a waste of time, distracting from the story, and in my opinion poorly done. I dont want to sound cold, but when a Fool like that is still a fool, the generally wont be quickly accepted back into society. If an idiot wont change, wont grow up, then should he, will he be accepted? If JJ changed, then send me your copy of TPM and i will concede the point, but JJ was still a compleat idiot at the end of the movie and didnt deserve the prais he was given in my opinion.

I am not saying that you have to be accepted by society, that we have to conform, but Lucas sure seems to be saying that. (the whole moral could be taken that way instead, why not?)

 

>>>JJB teaches the queen how to save the planet<<<<

I have yet to see anyone say this. As you yourself pointed out, Gay-Len didn't say this either. No one has ever claimed that Jar-Jar thought the queen how to save Naboo.

>>> JJB is responsible for uniting the two societies <<<<

Again, no one has said this either. He helped to bring them together, but he's not responsible for it.

>>>>But many of us find him pointless even after analysis. I've looked at the film in both literary and mythological terms, and I don't think he was necessary (about as "necessary" to the film as Chewbacca - an interesting character, but not one upon which the saga rests). <<<<

Yeah, that's how I see him. He has some impact, some might say more than Chewie in ANH. He was a character that was part of our heroes who's personality was different than the others.

Could anyone have surved the purpose of Jar-Jar? Sure. Someone else could have helped the Jedi get to Theed, given the idea to the queen of using the Gungan and taken the queen to meet the gungan leader. Someone had to do that. Like him or not, Jar-Jar was used to play that purpose.

 

I have yet to see anyone say this. As you yourself pointed out, Gay-Len didn't say this either. No one has ever claimed that Jar-Jar thought the queen how to save Naboo.

Perhaps it was a poor choice of words on my part. The objection I raise is to the recurrent claim that JJB told Amidala about the army, and that that gave her the impetus to consider uniting the two societies. The last time that that argument appeared was several months ago (October, I believe). While I know it has occurred elsewhere, you can find it in the discussions in the "The Phantom Edit is Mine!" thread.

Again, no one has said this either. He helped to bring them together, but he's not responsible for it.

This has also recurred in this forum. Again, the last concrete example of this claim was in the "The Phantom Edit is Mine!" thread, though it has occurred elsewhere. I apologize in advance for asking you to look through a thread with several thousand responses, but I know it is in there, because several of us had a long discussion about the necessity of JJB, his characterization, his responsibility in the whole Naboo/Gungan reconciliation, etc. If you don't feel like wading through all of that, just check through my post history for posts in the above mentioned thread around Oct./Nov. The discussion revolved around TPRE's change in JJB's character (changing his dialogue to make him more introspective, as well as editing our his pratfalling).

That's the best I can do off of the top of my head. If I had a week, I could go through all of the JJB characterizations threads and posts to post more substantive proof.

 

I find it sad that so many people equate a character being over-friendly as being annoying.

 

It's just a movie. Don't overanalyze it - you'll just ruin the fun.

 

>>>>That's the best I can do off of the top of my head. If I had a week, I could go through all of the JJB characterizations threads and posts to post more substantive proof.<<<<

Nah, if anyone said this then they were wrong. I haven't seen it, but I'll take your word for it. Bottomline, that's not what Gay-Len or anyone in this thread has said.

 

"I find it sad that so many people equate a character being over-friendly as being annoying."

Well that isn't the reason. C'mon.

 

<<I find it sad that so many people equate a character being over-friendly as being annoying. >>

But he's not overfriendly. He's a backstabber who hides behind his religion to protect himself and forgets about it if doing so would allow him to become "popular", like he did at the end of the movie when he "forgot" his life-debt.