PT Was Jar Jar Binks really that bad?

Jar jar was for the kids. Probably feeling the story may not have kept kids attention due to it being a fairly political movie.

I think by ROTS George managed to balance out the humour and fun. But I think with TPM he was still working that part out.

 

then that makes Qui-Gon a lil bit of an idiot,
look at at all the antics Jar Jar gets up to in the space of a short time:

almost trashes Watto's shop



gets his hand caught in the pod racer fan



steals some local produce from a stall



stepping in doo-doo

 

I would think Qui-Gon took Jar Jar with him to Mos Espa because he felt he could prove useful somehow, as he'd said earlier on Naboo. And Jar Jar did just that.

Yes, Jar Jar is the comic relief on Tatooine, but that's not all. It seemed clear to me that Jar Jar served as the catalyst which moved some key plot points forward, and as the pivot point on which some of the dialogues shifted into their necessary directions.

Jar Jar's antics in the junk shop helped provide Anakin and Padmé with their first bonding moment, laughing at his clumsiness.
And his run-in with Sebulba brought Anakin and Qui-Gon's ensemble back together.
Much like his mentioning of the grand Gungan army inspired Amidala to action, which saved the day and brought the Gingans and Naboo together.
Jar Jar is the energy binder of Episode I.

And in the dinner scene, Qui-Gon grabbing Jar Jar's tongue after bringing up Jedi reflexes is what prompted Anakin to ask Qui-Gon if he himself is a Jedi. Which then led to the conversation of Anakin helping them obtain the parts they need.

The overarching message being even clumsy misfits can have value and serve important purposes. Not only overtly, such as by mentioning the Gungan army, but also by means of the subtle story crafting mechanics.

There's a little Jar Jar inside all of us and George was trying to give it the love it deserves.

 

Hey, I'm just remembering what I read once!

Honestly, it's tough to get an accurate read on what Qui-Gon really thought of Jar Jar. One minute he's calling him "brainless" and the next, he's pressing pause on an urgent attempt to intercept the invasion in order to plead for the poor guy's life. He takes him to Mos Espa (suggesting that he doesn't mind the company) but then reprimands him in the marketplace and painfully reprimands him over the dinner table. After that... well, they don't really interact much. Jar Jar sticks with the Queen's party on Coruscant, then gets drafted as soon as they're back on Naboo.

I'm guessing Qui-Gon just saw him as a guiding part of the natural path, and thought (or knew) that more opportunities would present themselves with him than without.

This is where the game helps. When playing as Obi-Wan in Otoh Gunga, you can ask Qui-Gon, "Why do we need that worthless creature?" and Qui-Gon explains, "He is still an important lifeform, and I will not see him suffer." After which, all Obi-Wan can promise is, "I'll find him, Master." I like that exchange, a lot.

 

Thinking about it, I think the, "not at the expense of the moment", "focus on the here and now" aspect of Qui-Gon. He may have a goal, but if he sees someone he thinks needs help in the moment, maybe if he can do both, he will.

 

Yeah, good point, I like that. Ties into his whole deal as a 'destiny' Jedi, like how he accidentally stumbles across Anakin during a seemingly random series of events, and then straight-up tells the Council that "finding him was the will of the Force".

 

Qui-Gon certainly saw that Jar Jar was clumsy, and that he'd probably have a few accidentés in Mos Espa, but he also understood that even when beings make mistakes, good things, or silver linings, can come from it. In fact, I would bet the Queen's ship that's exactly why he brought him into Mos Espa. Jar Jar, through his authentic, but socially awkward ways, has a way of bringing about turns of events that others wouldn't. The prime example being the run-in with Sebulba reuniting the crew with Anakin.

 

The toilet humor moments (brief as they were) with Jar Jar were really terrible. If that humor belongs anywhere, it doesn't belong in a flagship Star Wars movie.
Jar Jar as a whole in all of SW isn't a bad character. He would be better in TPM if his screen time was reduced. He's more tolerable in the rest of the prequels given how limited a lot of his screen time is.

 

the best dam thing to happen to star wars.

 

Jar Jars Binks wasn't bad at all. Unless he stood in the way of my troops locating the roomahed undawooda villages.

 

I don't think the character is "bad" per se, at least not worse than Ewoks. It's the way he is overused and his over-the-top slapstick "humor" that put many fans off, including myself.
Lucas would have done well to exercise slightly more restraint with such "jokes" or at least let them not sink to "toilet humor" level (I personally never saw any "humor" in this type of "comedy"). Yeah, I know, "meant for the kids" etc. No kid I ever knew actually found this type of slapstick funny. I know I didn't. It's not that Jar-Jar ruined TPM, but the movie would have been much better with less in-your-face slapstick and focused more on other things. Like, including that first encounter young Anakin had with that wounded Tusken, as in the novelization, would have been nice, given TPM and its sequel more depth and meaning. And I'm pretty sure the kids wouldn't have minded either.
Less is more!!

 

I think the idea was that to keep kids attention you need to constantly have something happening. Otherwise kids get bored. So if a scene seems like nothing is really happening you add some sillyness there to bring kids back.

By episode 3 Lucas added more energy from other sources to make it exciting for kids.

Out of the 3 trilogies i think kids today probably would find the PT more appealing. Maybe not so much episode 1, but episode 2 and 3 because there is alot of color, action, and visuals. alot of what fans probably hated about it originally for being different to the OT, i think will actually appeal more to kids. Jedi are basically superheroes and everyone wants to be a jedi.

 

I think the argument of "You must keep having sight gags in a film or else kids gets bored" underestimates kids a bit. It talks down to them somewhat.
I saw ANH when I was eight and was not bored and none of my classmates that saw at at that time were bored either.

The "Jingling keys" defense is not a strong one to me.
Plenty of films do not have this and manage to work for kids without them getting bored.

Jar Jar was, to me, a case of Lucas trying too hard to be funny.
Imagine that a comedian is telling a funny story, but at the same time he/she is also doing pratfalls, is dressed as a clown and has a bunch of other clowns throwing pies at him.
That could be overdoing it.

Some times, less is more.

I did not laugh at any of Jar Jar's antics and since he was in the film so much, it grew a bit grating.

Lastly, having Jar Jar do "funny" things to keep the attention of kids in "talky" scenes. The problem is where do we have a lot of "talky" scenes? Coruscant. And there Jar Jar has to do and is not as involved.
But in the Gungan battle, Jar Jar does a lot of "funny" stuff but that is not a talky scene and lots of stuff is happening.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Nor was I, or anyone I knew. Could it be a generation thing? I was 12 when I first watched ANH, and never once got bored, even during those allegedly "boring" desert scenes with the droids. Oh, and I was 13 or 14 when I first saw 2001, and regularly re-watched it throughout my teenage years and way beyond. Not once did I hope for something to "happen"; on the contrary, I was able to just sit back and enjoy the amazing visuals, soundtrack and Kubrick's stunning attention to detail. Same for the original Alien and all the following SW movies, including the comparatively "slow" ESB.
I wonder, is it just my impression or are kids today generally no longer able to enjoy a movie without constantly being bombarded with explosions or fights? What about tension, building up atmosphere, music, sets, landscape shots etc.? It would be sad if audiences nowadays could no longer appreciate those.

 

Showing my age here but I saw the OT when they came out. So I am the cranky old man, yelling at the kids to get off my lawn.

But to answer your question, I do think some things have changed in films from the 60-70's to now.
Ex that I have noticed is editing and pacing. Older films tended to be slower paced and not has as many quick cuts. In newer action films, action scenes can have very quick cuts so that each shot is very short.
Some critics call the scenes "Over-edited" and the action can sometimes be hard to follow.
Older actions scenes could have the action play out in longer shots and not have as many quick cuts.
Not all films to be sure and this is not exactly new, I have noticed this for over ten years.

I am no film editor, I have cut some Super 8 films that I filmed myself back in the 80's and that was quite crude. I think that things happened when digital editing became more common. I think it was called AVID but I could be wrong. And that was quite a while ago so there is probably much newer stuff they use.

So some changes in films is likely due to technology, they can do stuff now that was impossible in the 70's. Other things are more in the realm of what is "popular" or "the done thing"
Ex, take TV in the 80's and early 90's. In TV-series, they were often episodic so each Ep could be watched without having watched the one before. In long running series, there could be recurring characters and mentions of past events but it was not a continuous story broken into parts. Star Trek is one such example. But you started to have series with an ongoing continuity, that each ep led into the next, Babylon 5 is an example here. These days, TV series quite often have ongoing stories.
Another difference with TV is number of ep, back then 20-25 ep a season was common. Now 8-10 is more the norm.
On the whole, TV has come a long way since then and they can be quite creative and make really good stuff. Movie actors don't look down on being on TV as much these days.

Films can sometimes be dated, even when the story does not take place in what is "current time".
Ex, take Gladiator and The Fall of the Roman Empire. Both films deal with much the same events and some of the same characters. In both you have the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, he gets murdered and his son, Commodus, takes over. Both films even ends with Commodus fighting the main hero of the film.
But I think that someone that has no idea when the films were made and watches them, that someone could likely tell which of them was the older film.
To use ANH; that film is a bit dated in some of the hairstyles for some of the characters. They are a bit 70's.

Sorry, got a bit rambling there.

Bye.
Old Stoneface

 

i find this thread hurtful.

 

Jar Jar has always been one of my favourite characters. He walks and talks cool. He really is a nice dude. I’m tired of the gungan bashing that’s been going on since Ep 1. Everyone makes fun of them but I’m sure they’d accept their help if the Seperatists were attacking them.