PT Whats up with Jar Jar Binks?

THIS. Big_Benn_Klingon

 

Nah.

 

lol. There are actually some ironic similarities. The Tea Party is an anti-government party who's goal is to influence/play-a-role-in the government - not significantly different than considering oneself a militant SW fan, while actively pursuing an anti-SW/lucas crusade. The significant difference however is that the Tea Party's motivation is based in actual real life interests and material realities (at least in their minds), while SW is a fantasy scifi saga/universe meant to be enjoyed for leisure.

Edit: haven't figured out the quoting system I guess. I hit reply on Aran Fenn's post but there didn't seem to be any quote of it.

 

This isn't a court of law and playing with words like a lawyer wont make you win the discussion on a technicality.

In any case I couldn't disagree with you any more fervently regarding opinion. The untold billions of dollars spent on public relations and advertising every year really suggests otherwise.

Also for the record, stating that you dislike PT/Jar Jar etc, is perfectly legit and doesn't mean you are trying to influence others or that somebody made you think that. But you have to be completely blind if you think there hasn't been a concerted effort to besmirch Lucas and the PT, and yes, influence opinions (uh, redlettermedia or The People vs George Lucas anybody?)

 

Validation. Confirmation.

That's a testable argument, but I think you deliver the point a glancing blow rather than missing it entirely. Opinions and ideas evolve over time. Your will is subject to change, and the factors that affect those changes are many, varied and complicated.

If it's your opinion that pi is exactly 3, your opinion can be demonstrated false even if you really don't like the fact. If you're reasonable (and capable of understanding) then your opinion will change.


Will is also subject to terms and conditions. Unless you believe in some sort of consciousness flip-flopping free-for-all reincarnation, you didn't decide to be born into the culture, location and time that you happen to find yourself in. Your opinions are massively shaped and regulated by these factors.

Seeking validation and confirmation of your beliefs a bit there.

 

Jar Jar was better than the 2 headed Bode and Theed character at least. The only part of TPM I didn't really like with him was his role in the battle at the end, bumbling around killing battledroids and taking down a tank by fumbling that blue ball weapon. It made the whole battle seem kind of silly and ridiculous and the droids not so intimidating. I think Lucas learned his lesson though and toned him down a lot for the rest of the prequels. like he learned to improve some of the bad dialogue and cgi, over the course of making the films, which is why ROTS is my favorite Star Wars film.

 

Jar Jar was farted on. By an Eopie. In the face. Then he sniffed it. And said 'Pee-yousa!'

Well, there it is...

 

To be an ass, basically. You have to remember that most of the people that were trying to influence others, were largely doing so because it was the cool and hip thing to do. Quite a number that started it were probably guys in their 20's who wanted to "rule the internet" by tearing down "Star Wars" and this was one example that they latched on. They took those who had legitimate complaints and then exploited it for their own amusement. They'd sit there and go, "Why so hostile? It's only the internet." And, "You're only mad because its true." And so on. Online posting, you're the bully. You're anonymous. You entertain yourself by whatever gives you pleasure. You don't need anything else but that.

 

I can tell you why I dislike Jar Jar, but I don't mean to impose that view on others. Both my dad and my kids thought he was just great. My distaste for Jar Jar is entirely the result of my own cynicism. I agree that all of the 'Jar Jar sux!' ballyhoo is just silly and some people take it far too seriously.

 

I certainly don't dislike the concept of Jar Jar. I just dislike the execution of his character. This was confirmed to me last night when I watched TPM in Spanish dubbing. The actor who dubbed Jar Jar was hilarious! He had the perfect pacing and psychology to voice the character. In fact the whole movie was better dubbed. I can see a lot better what George intended when I watch it that way.

 

Validation and confirmation of the their own beliefs.

Your argument was that people cannot possibly be on a mission/crusade because there's no economic goal or tangible purpose. My point is that people naturally seek validation and confirmation and that this is motivation enough.

No problem as such, I was merely disagreeing with your argument.

...Okaaaay. Then use your imagination to think of a more subjective parallel. I can't be expected to spoon feed you everything.

Really? I mean it seems to me that you must understand enough to selectively quote and obscure the discussion so much...

...No. This is an interesting style of argument, in that you're taking my responses to what you've said and applying them to things that I wasn't directly talking about.

The point I was making was that your will isn't as free as you imagine it to be. You never chose to limit your choices and your imagination by being born into your culture at this point in history. If you'd been born 10, 20, 30 years earlier, your opinions would differ. That's not something you choose, therefore circumstance has the effect of shaping your opinion 'against your will', or against your potential better judgement.

You've simply misunderstood. Hopefully, otherwise you're being a little antagonistic.

 

I apologise if I've not made my point clear enough.

My point has been that the culture and history into which you're born forms and regulates your opinion. By your own implication, the bible belt culture is something that has shaped your opinion - in your case you've opposed it. Under different social circumstances, your opinions would be formed differently. Feminism and religion might be utterly irrelevant 1000 years from now. Questioning the logic and virtue of such systems 1000 years ago may have been literally unthinkable.

Let's use my cloning tank and time machine to make another you and drop you in imperial Rome c.80ad. You'd grow up with a radically different world view, your 'natural personality' (assuming for the moment that such a thing exists) would be formed and shaped in accordance and reaction to a different set of circumstances, your knowledge of the world would be limited by history and you would have different opinions.

This is something entirely out of your control, therefore your will to choose what opinion you hold is, in the grand scheme of things, limited. You have a limited set of options dictated by the constraints of spacetime.

This argument is in response to your assertion that it's impossible to have your opinion changed against your will, which if you remember, I claimed largely missed the point.

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. I'm not sure I understand the sentence. I don't know how to begin to explain 'it' differently, given that 'it' bears no resemblance to anything I've been saying.

I've not argued that people must have a terrible agenda of some sort. I've been disagreeing with your assertions regarding human nature and the nature of opinion. Specifically I've been answering these points you made:
"If there's a mission to "influence," there's got to be a concrete end result, otherwise why the hell would anyone set out on such a "mission"?"
and
"there is no such thing as being influenced by an opinion against your will--anyone who is influenced by one of my opinions, has chosen to be."

Hopefully you're a little more open to the idea that confirmation/validation is enough motivation to inspire a mission to influence, and that opinion and will don't have quite the relationship you implied they do. That's the validation and confirmation of my beliefs that I'm seeking in his conversation.

 

Correct on both accounts. Though in the case of the EU, it was more of a war between both sides who had valid points, but went way too over the top. It's part of the reason I even signed up here in the first place. My first post was about that.

Indeed. It even lead to the creation of another message board, dedicated to not so much trash the PT and the SE's, but to be really vocal and condescending of the films and Lucas. It was more bashing than not at times. And I know of another forum unrelated to "Star Wars", where the members were from a different board and still to this day, trash the older forum and its members. Because of how business was conducted there and how certain people held on to grudges almost ten years after the fact.

I've had discussions elsewhere with people who refuse to believe even that much, when I brought it up.

This is especially true after recent events.

Some of it was attacking, but some of it was more just tearing it down. Take a look at the Ain't It Cool News forums. One person would find something and then exploit it as an ongoing meme. Basically becoming an ass. "All Your Base Are Belong To Us" and "Jim Gordon has a beer and cheats on his wife", were two such examples. And these things just became a big bandwagon and began overtaking threads not related to the topic at hand. Likewise, Lucas raped my childhood moved beyond "Star Wars" and became the catch all for anything that disappointed people. That's the kind of bandwagoning that I'm talking about. Where everyone just jumps in because they don't want to be left out. While at the same time, the ones that needle others are bullies but they're more of a douche than anything.

 

I just realised that I am not certain what people meant with the statement "Lucas raped my childhood". Can somebody explain or point me to were I can find an explanation? bitte

 

It probably refers to some imaginary feeling that their childhood enjoyment of Star Wars has been hurt/destroyed by SE and PT. Ironically, it's mostly vocalized by adults who see it as their job to hamper today's kids enjoyment of Star Wars which - by implication - confirms that they're living in the past.

 

I was not talking abour your son.

 

People just need to accept that the PT is different from the OT and move on with their lives.