Jar Jar Binks and Anakin Skywalker... am I the only one who understood what George Lucas made?

[velour]

Jar-Jar was never funny to me, even when I was younger, though I was 15 when TPM came out.

I also tend to agree that Anakin didn't really gain any credibility with the audience. I think, in terms of character development, Luke was far more the everyman, who grows in to the hero. Anakin is "the Chosen One" and that can separate him from sympathy with the audience. As much as I understand that Anakin's fall is tragic, there isn't a moment where I feel like he is a real person going through a real crisis. He feels fated to be Darth Vader with no redeeming quality to endear me to him.

Is it the writing? Probably. I certainly don't fault the actors, but I struggled to connect with Anakin.

Looks aren't everything. But in movies, it means a lot. One of the problems that I had with the Anakin character was in the casting. I think GL made a mistake by casting a pretty boy as Anakin. I know it is subjective, but GL should have chosen an actor with an edgy look. An actor with an appearance that would have conveyed a darker vibe.

Hayden Christiansen too often looked like a deer in headlights.

But of course, that would only be a part of it. The ability to act the part is vital as well. HC didn't deliver on both accounts.

In any case, the PT wasted too many scenes with fight scenes and other massive cgi scenes. I think GL got caught up with the allure and dazzle of his own cgi, when he should have devoted more of the PT to character development, specifically Anakin's development and evolution to the darkside. HC still might not have been able to successfully pull it off, but at least a more thorough attempt would have been made to achieve that end.

TPM was a complete waste of time. It almost came across as the Jar Jar Binks show. I think it might have been better had Anakin been introduced as a troubled teenager in the first movie and then proceed from there. Forget about Jake Lloyd and the kid stuff.

Poor Jake Lloyd acted as well as any 9-year-old can be expected to act. GL's deficiencies as a director (he's best as a big-picture story guy) show through. This is also evident in that by RotS the performances from the stronger actors are either phoned in (Jackson, especially in his pronunciation of lines), or just off the rails (Portman). A stronger director could have fixed those two.

There was one actor whose performance was even poorer than that of either CH or JL. That was Samuel Jackson's. Jackson was wooden and his speech was very stilted. Just terrible. Jackson was the big name actor whose performance failed miserably, imo.

and some even suggest that he is Darth Plageus, jumping body to body (literally becoming the bigger fish that eats the smaller fish while jar jar's body is passed out.) There is a scene where his mouth is moving a little bit in the background while possibly controlling someone. They keep pointing out that as a cgi character, every tiny detail is done on purpose. They suggest that it was all supposed to parallel with Yoda, who misrepresented himself to Luke, and acted like the strange weird hermit in the woods, until revealing himself as the Jedi Master.

I think some of the seemingly odd cgi details might have been inside jokes created by the cgi artists. The odd details may have been created by the artists to amuse themselves. They were suppose to be noticed by their creators and their fellow colleagues when they viewed the movie, and not by the general movie audience.

 

[JRoss]

Oh yeah. Jackson was bad.

 

[fireproof78]

Here's the thing about the CGI-Lucas was breaking new ground a many ways that had never been done before. As much criticism is laid at Lucas' feet, I'll not begrude him the technology he developed with ILM and other effects work to give us something new.

As much as I don't like the PT, they did things that had not been done before and paved the way for much of contemporary cinematography. I'll not fault CGI for the movie's failings.

 

[VulcanMindBlown]

Here's a link that I wanted to show (though I don't agree with its politics):

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/14165/in-defence-of-jar-jar-binks

People didn't like Jar Jar Binks, because a lot of Star Wars fans didn't want a slap stick character. This guy who is sort of like a "stage clown" part of the humor, was supposed to be for the kids and annoying.

I'll defend him more this way:
*He got together the Naboo and Gungans by being a social outcast that was brought back together.

What would you guys have rather done in place of him?

I think also the hate comes from the fact that he was a real live CGI character in a live action movie. I've said this before that in the CGI cartoon Star Wars: The Clone Wars, he was VERY funny and I had no reason to not like him.

So . . . are you angry at Anakin for betraying the Jedi, something that you knew was going to happen? And so you have decided to compare him to Benedict Arnold? Okaay . . .

What do you mean that I am angry at him? I am just saying that people in history and real life, do betray people and turn to the Dark Side for selfish and immature reasons based on his poor circumstances. That's life, just like Benedict Arnold. He had some bad experiences with the American Revolutionaries, was immature, selfishly wanted power, and took the opportunity to give in.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't mind Jar-Jar in concept, or even that he is fully CGI. But, he became kind of gimmicky in that they had to show him interacting with the environment, and do long exaggerated takes with him that wouldn't be done if he was a puppet or a droid.

Secondly, while his status as an outcast is well and good, his one trait seems to be that he is "clumsy." He fumbles everything, drops multiple things, and doesn't really grow as a character. He is rewarded with being general but he does nothing to earn such an honor. It reminds me a bit of the criticism of Kirk at the end of ST 09.

What would I do different? First, treat him as a regular character. Dexter in AOTC is a great example of this. He's a new alien, never seen him before and yet Obi-Wan treats him like an everyday person, a character that is wholly unremarkable. If Jar-Jar is to be comedic relief, then tone it down. The humor in the OT was less physical and more ridiculous situations being commented on ("We're going to be a lot thinner" etc).

Secondly, the Gungans are a proud warrior race. Why? What are they normally fighting? I think the larger issue is that we don't really have a sense of the Gungan society beyond Boss Nass (who looks different) and their great army.

Now, contrast that with the Ewoks, because it is a similar situation. Leia makes contact, and their is initial resistance. Then, there is an exchange of ideas and that creates an understanding. I think Jar-Jar could be used not to show what the Gungans can do for the Naboo but just how deadly the Trade Federation to the Gungan way of life. Something, something, assimilation metaphor.

So, Jar-Jar as less the clumsy jester and more of a warrior, and perhaps still kind of accident prone. The Gungans less lucky allies, and more of a mutual support and recognition (symbiotic circle).

Was this done in the films? Somewhat, but some more flesh on these bones would help.

I also have enjoyed your blogs

 

[LJones41]

Jar Jar is a bad character, because he is clumsy? Jar Jar is hated by so many fans because he is clumsy?

Now, contrast that with the Ewoks, because it is a similar situation. Leia makes contact, and their is initial resistance. Then, there is an exchange of ideas and that creates an understanding. I think Jar-Jar could be used not to show what the Gungans can do for the Naboo but just how deadly the Trade Federation to the Gungan way of life. Something, something, assimilation metaphor.

What exactly do you mean?

 

[fireproof78]

Jar Jar is a bad character, because he is clumsy? Jar Jar is hated by so many fans because he is clumsy?

Not just because of that, but because that becomes his defining characteristic.

People will dislike Jar-Jar for all sorts of reasons, and have been debated a time or two around the world hive mind.

What exactly do you mean?

Which part?
The Ewoks-local tribe contacted by outsiders to help fight off invading force. Similar to Gungans in that the Naboo are outsiders to the Gungan society asking for their help. Leia forms the initial contact with the Ewoks, and Padme makes the overture to the Gungans.

The Trade Federation threat-the Gungans don't consider them to be a threat to them. Obi-Wan's warning falls flat because, well, it isn't really a good argument. Padme makes the argument at the ruins that the Federation threatens all that they have built, but we don't really see the threat to the Gungans. They run off and hide, and the crisis would blow over and that's it for their part. They only engage when Boss Nass think the Naboo get off their high horse and beg for their help.

In other words, "We wouldn't help you until you're desperate and subservient to us."

The assimilation metaphor could ostensibly be argued from GL's original idea of Star Wars to begin with, that of technology vs. spirituality and nature. Could have easily ended up with the Trade Federation pressing the Gungans in to service, forcing them to use technology that they were not familiar with or not native to them. The Gungans could draw them in and defeat them via nature, i.e. water against the droids.

 

[suarezguy]

I don't really get the resentment of Jar-Jar after C-3PO was both a major part and very much comic relief in the original trilogy. But I guess it's a combination of him being so childish-goofy, CGI and that a lot of the other characters were stiff.
I still feel enough nostalgia from initially watching TPM as a kid that the Jar-Jar comic relief may occasionally be excessive but rarely bad.
Anakin I really don't mind.

 

[Ithekro]

One thing I did find interesting (from a very small amount of experience) is that Jar Jar fans really don't like C-3PO. I'm not sure why though.

 

[Phoenix219]

I still love the Darth Jar Jar Theory that led me to this thread. Its the only reason I still get updates to this thread. But it is never about that awesome conspiracy theory...

 

[LJones41]

One thing I did find interesting (from a very small amount of experience) is that Jar Jar fans really don't like C-3PO. I'm not sure why though.

I'm a Jar Jar fan and I'm a C-3PO fan. Are you speaking on behalf of all Jar-Jar fans?

In any case, the PT wasted too many scenes with fight scenes and other massive cgi scenes.

I really find this hard to accept, considering I just recently watched "Attack of the Clones".

Not just because of that, but because that becomes his defining characteristic.

People dislike Jar Jar because his clumsiness is his defining character trait? Is clumsiness that demonized by society? We're supposed to hate people who are clumsy?

 

[Phoenix219]

All of that is actually *part* of the Jar Jar "twist" theory - that all of the "unbelievable" / clumsy / 4th wall breaking / "crazy luck" / scenes were *supposed* to be a bit off putting, so that upon rewatch, after a twist/reveal, you would see layers of depth with the Jar Jar storyline. So the story goes, they underestimated just how "off" and hated the character would actually be, so the "twist" was ignored in later movies and never implemented, leaving all of the things fans notice and dislike about Jar Jar, but never tying it up into the satisfying twist/ending.

It might all be coincidnetal and made up (although a certain tweet implies otherwise), but its given me new appreciate for TPM and the character anyways, even if its made up. Lol.

 

[JD]

I'm sorry, but it's gotta be made up. I just don't see Lucas being that subtle, especially by the time he got to the PT.

One thing I did find interesting (from a very small amount of experience) is that Jar Jar fans really don't like C-3PO. I'm not sure why though.

I like Jar-Jar, and C-3PO is one of my favorite characters in the entire franchise.

 

[Ithekro]

I'm a Jar Jar fan and I'm a C-3PO fan. Are you speaking on behalf of all Jar-Jar fans?

I have only personally encountered one Jar Jar Binks fan were Jar Jar is his favorite character. He detests C-3PO since 1977. He couldn't quite put it into words, but it seemed like it was the haughty British Butler voice that triggers the displeasure. This is why I added "from a very small amount of experience".

I've encountered people that don't mind Jar Jar, but only one were Jar Jar is his favorite character in Star Wars.

 

[LJones41]

New
I'm sorry, but it's gotta be made up. I just don't see Lucas being that subtle, especially by the time he got to the PT.

Lucas was just as subtle in the PT than he was in the OT. The problem is that the PT is also a lot more ambiguous and I get the feeling that many people didn't like the ambiguous nature of the PT. Th seemed to prefer the more black and white or "simplistic" approach of the OT.

 

[fireproof78]

People dislike Jar Jar because his clumsiness is his defining character trait? Is clumsiness that demonized by society? We're supposed to hate people who are clumsy?

Way to twist my words. That was not my meaning nor my intent to demonize clumsy individuals.

Jar-Jar's defining characteristic is that he is clumsy and if you don't find that entertaining (like in a Three Stooges way) then it can come across as irritating. In addition, characters can often be more appealing if there is more than one definable definition to their character.

And no, I don't "hate" Jar-Jar, just to be clear. I just don't find him funny. But, since comedy is subjective, that isn't always understood as a valid criticism.

The OT was both subtle and simplistic. The PT attempted to be subtle but didn't tell the story in a way that allowed the subtlety to pay off with any of the characters. I think the best example is Padm'es twins, and, as noted above, that the reveal Luke and Leia is handled very well in ROTS, rather than Obi-Wan's exposition and Leia's "I've always known."

 

[Solid Snack]

One interesting thing is that in one of the AOTC drafts, Jar-Jar was actually shown to have matured and spoke better to fit in with the Coruscant politics (although with occasional relapses into his old ways of speaking, much to his embarassment). They pretty much ignored that in the final film though.

 

[LJones41]

The OT was both subtle and simplistic. The PT attempted to be subtle but didn't tell the story in a way that allowed the subtlety to pay off with any of the characters.

Only in your mind and in the minds of other people. Just as there are other people, including myself, who would disagree with you.

I think the best example is Padm'es twins, and, as noted above, that the reveal Luke and Leia is handled very well in ROTS, rather than Obi-Wan's exposition and Leia's "I've always known."

This is your argument?

 

[fireproof78]

Only in your mind and in the minds of other people. Just as there are other people, including myself, who would disagree with you.

I have no doubts that people disagree with me. I know many who also disagree with me that ATOC is the better prequel film, so I'm used to being disagreed with.

This is your argument?

Not really. More of a discussion point. I see more of the subtlety of Lucas driving to weave a Dune-eque political and mythological narrative but ultimately not succeeding, primarily due to the characters not being fully fleshed out. Lucas tries very hard to have the moral gray that is so common among other SF franchises but there are some missteps that hang it up, in my opinion. The primary misstep is making the Jedi out to be Palpatine's fall guys, with seemingly no positive aspect.

I have no doubt that the above will be dissected as being more hateful rhetoric against Lucas.

 

[velour]

People didn't like Jar Jar Binks, because a lot of Star Wars fans didn't want a slap stick character. This guy who is sort of like a "stage clown" part of the humor, was supposed to be for the kids and annoying.

I think also the hate comes from the fact that he was a real live CGI character in a live action movie. I've said this before that in the CGI cartoon Star Wars: The Clone Wars, he was VERY funny and I had no reason to not like him.

I generally agree with your observations about Jar Jar.

Jar Jar Binks was an outlandishly silly cartoon-like character. Jar Jar was an extremely dumbed down kind of comic relief that didn't appeal to me, at least not within a Star Wars movie.

C3PO, on the other hand, was effective comic relief when the character played the scene that way. C3PO's banter was witty and not simply inane, imo. C3PO was like a stiff upper lip Englishman fogey, who found himself in perilous situations, and he would come up with something witty to show his fear or desperation.