Best Comic-Con picture...

[Archae]

:rofl:

[LibertyLover]

1. Controlsa, altsa, deletesa -

as they say.

[sarge43]

2. Yes.

:spray:

[jobycom]

3. I seem to be the only person who liked Jar Jar.

He was about the only one in the second trilogy who could act with any emotion.

[InvisibleTouch]

5. Well, that's a valid point. n/t

[kentauros]

13. You're not the only one.

I liked him. He was a buffoon (or better, The Fool) but not nearly as annoying as everyone made him out to be.

[Orrex]

14. Worst character in the history of science fiction cinema

A poor stand-in for the fool archetype, even by Lucas' standards.

[kentauros]

15. I guess my standards are low, then.

I still liked him and don't feel any of the reasons given so far for hating him are justified.

[Orrex]

16. We can start with the Stepin Fetchit characterization, and then we can talk about his voice

Either of those, honestly, is enough to hate him.

We could also talk about how he was the most shamelessly hard-marketed figure from The Phantom Menace, obviously conceived (and realized) as a means to sell product rather than as a fully-formed character intended to move the story forward.

After that, we could discuss how his presence cheapens the dramatic struggle (such as it is) of every other character who shares screen time with him.

And we could also exchange a few thoughts about how he represents Lucas' ham-fisted attempt at comedy; worse, Jar Jar was an attempt at comic relief, which makes no sense in a movie with no ambient dramatic seriousness in the first place.

Speaking of relief, Jar Jar was responsible for not one but two "jokes" about the excretory process. I'm not a prude, but even for Lucas this is something of a low-point. Do we really need poop and fart jokes to help advance the narrative?


I could go on and on.

[kentauros]

17. I KNOW you would go on and on...

And I disagree with everything you posted there. Accept it. I see no reason to argue it.

[Orrex]

18. Then let's talk about his animation, lame even by 1997 standards

We could also revile him for continuing Lucas' freakish obsession with "naive clumsiness is better than skill and discipline."


I'll accept that you disagree if you accept that you're wrong about him.

[kentauros]

19. You're just going to have to learn to accept disappointment.

In this case, I will not discuss it, I will not argue with you. We have our own definitions of this character that are polar opposites. The only thing we can agree on is he is a character in those movies. That's it.

[Orrex]

21. Disappointed? Not at all. A bit puzzled, maybe.

I would love to hear what you find redeeming in that insipid, ill-conceived character.

[kentauros]

23. Nothing I say would sound "redeeming" to you,

so I have nothing to say.

You appear to in an off-mood tonight, more obstinate than usual. Are you doing okay? :)

[Orrex]

24. LOL! Thanks for asking, but...

I could give you a long series of links to my previous anti-Jar Jar diatribes.

Don't mistake my consistent and long-running hatred of him for a currently foul mood, though I appreciate concern!

[kentauros]

26. Don't take the time to list those links

because I won't be clicking on them, unless you are bored and want other readers of this thread to have a look ;)

I asked about your mood thanks to the other thread about why DU seems to be in a funk right now:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x9447754

Glad to hear it's only this subject and not something else :D

[MrMickeysMom]

20. How about this one?

JAR JAR BINKS MUST DIE!!!!

[kentauros]

22. I don't see anything there that means I must hate him.

So much emotional energy spent over something of little consequence...

[MrMickeysMom]

25. Well, he IS just someone's CGI...

So, it's like reading a book, and you come across this reeeeeely annoying character. I mean, it's altogether the funny and annoying and entirely anti-intellectual. These characters are part of the myth of Star Wars.

You know the MOST annoying Star Wars character? It was the the Chewbacca family that was featured on some fucking Christmas show in the late 80's. AUGH... awful. Chewbacca was going home for Christmas... don't we all want to see his friggin family and sing (yeah, in that voice!)

Come on... it's funny as hell YET, really annoying!

[kentauros]

27. I will agree about the "Star Wars Holiday Special"

starring Harvey Korman, Bea Arthur, Art Carney, and Diahann Carroll :evilgrin:

I have never gotten all the way through that "thing" and I've tried several times! It cries out for RiffTrax :D

[jobycom]

28. He wasn't even in the top five worst in Star Wars.

Christensen's Anakin was the worst. There's no argument possible there, you either admit the truth or you're just part of the problem.

Then you can line up every other Jedi from the second series. They were all flat, even if most were played by good actors.

Then you've got every Ewok.

Even if you don't like Jar Jar, you can't argue he's the worst.

And if you expand it beyond Star Wars, you have every sci fi role Keanu Reeves has ever played, except Neo in the first Matrix. I ain't even bothering to go on. Your statement has been shattered beyond defense or salvation.

[kentauros]

31. I will second the sentiment on Christensen.

As I was watching him, I was thinking that not only did he pass the auditions but that he was cast to work with veteran actors, making me wonder what they thought of his acting "skills"...

I was also thinking of the MST3K version of Rocket Attack USA (starts at 8:56) where when one of the actors wasn't up to snuff for acting "ability", one of the bots asked "Could you speak a little more woodenly?" That was Christensen to me.

[jobycom]

34. Some actors are very charming in person but not on camera.

I suspect that's the case with him. Anakin was supposed to be troubled but lovable, and neither came across well. I think maybe Christensen is charismatic when watching him live, but somehow the camera can't capture that. Most of the time you figure something like that out by watching smaller roles in lesser films, but Lucas decided to cast an unknown in a major role, and it bit him.

Then again, all of the Jedis were lifeless, and they had some great actors portraying them. How do you make Liam Neeson and Samuel L Jackson and Christopher Lee lifeless? Lucas can. That's quite a feat in itself.

Oddly, despite the complaining I'm doing, I actually liked the movies. They didn't work well on their own, but if you watch them and then the original trilogy, they work to set it up. I always thought Vader's conversion in "Jedi" was ridiculous, and the last Happy Ewok scene was just sad, especially with the ghosts. But after seeing the whole Anakin story, no matter how badly Christensen flubbed it up, it made the conversion scene work.

[kentauros]

35. I liked the movies, too, except for the battle scenes.

There's just too much to follow and it's harder to "enjoy". I've heard friends say that when the battle scenes were being developed that Lucas kept dictating "More action! There's needs to be more action!" as if things weren't active enough. So, like an artist that doesn't know when to stop, he over-did it and it's a mess. Other shows and movies have had great battle sequences (Babylon 5 and the BSG remake) and seemed to know not to show the whole battle from a distance. Up close and personal keeps the viewer from getting 'lost' in the action. Lucas seemed to understand that in the first trilogy and lost that knack in the later ones.

You're right about all the Jedis being lifeless. And yet, they're supposed to be getting the Force from Life? ;)

[jobycom]

36. I think I zoned out in the battle scenes, but I always do that.

Unless something about the battle is advancing a character or the plot, it's just like watching a song and dance in a musical, to me.

The one thing I really remember bothering me was the waterfall scene in the second movie. Anakin and the Princess are having a picnic in a field with a huge bank of giant waterfalls behind them, practically surrounding them, and all I kept thinking was "They wouldn't even be able to hear each other if those were real."

Some of the effects were great, of course, but that one bothered me.

[Orrex]

39. It is a crime to watch the prequel trilogy prior to the original trilogy

Nearly every significant moment of tension in the original trilogy is gutted by watching the prequel trilogy first. At the very least, the tension between Vader and Kenobi, as well as the power of Vader's "revelation" in TESB have no impact when you know that that whiny kid is inside the armor.

It would be like starting The Crying Game by showing how Dil became the person who captivated Fergus and Jody. Sure, the movie would still be excellent for other reasons, but the power of Dil's revelation--nearly unequaled in western film up to that moment--would lose all of its power.

[jobycom]

40. I can see that argument.

I can't agree with it, but it's a good point, anyway.

I really couldn't forget everything I know enough to recreate the original dramatic tension, anyway. It's not like I'm going to forget Luke is snogging his sister, or that Daddy is in the mask. The tension just becomes "Will Luke learn these facts in time to defeat Darth and avoid incest?"

[Orrex]

41. Well, for a veteran viewer, sure

But for someone who's coming to the trilogies for the first time (my sons, for instance) it would be a disservice to give it all away before they have a chance to get pulled into the story.

Also, it'll give me time to come up with an answer when they ask "why does the puppet Yoda look so much more real than the one that's jumping around?"

[Orrex]

32. Christensen's portrayal was awful, yes, but...

that doesn't render the character itself terrible, and certainly nowhere near as bad as Jar Jar.

The other Jedi don't match up simply because they lack the relative significance of Jar Jar. The fact that you refer to them en masse instead of by name is proof of this. How many Jedi do non-geeks even know by name? Yoda? Obi-wan? Luke? If you ask a non-geek, maybe they'll say something about "was Samuel Jackson a Jedi?" or "was Liam Neeson in that one?" As a group the Jedi can't be as awful as Jar Jar because they don't have the genre-spanning impact.

Ditto the Ewoks. As a group they might exceed Jar Jar's awfulness, though I'm not convinced. However, individually none of them matches him, in part for the same reason as above. Ask a non-geek to name an Ewok and they might say "Wickett," but that's it. Their individual anonymity renders any one of them incapable of being worse than Jar Jar.

I'm also not convinced that a bad actor equals (or necessarily results in) a bad character. Keanu Reeves' Klaatu is kind of flat and wooden, I grant, but does that mean that the character Klaatu is bad? I don't think so.

It would be more appropriate to compare Reeves' performance to Ahmed Best's performance, which is a separate consideration from "worst character." Even so, I'd still say that Best is the worst.

Incidentally, making fun of Keanu is kind of unfair, akin to punching an actor while he's asleep.


This important subject is not nearly as open to debate as some people would have us believe.

[jobycom]

33. I remembered Jar Jar because people whine about him all the time.

I remember the individual Jedis, I just didn't feel like checking the spelling on their names or typing them out.

There's nothing wrong with the character. He had a clear role, he was interesting, he symbolized the changing awareness and reality of the average citizen. It was better developed and more necessary to the story than any of the individual Jedis. I guess they could have gassed it up and had a cute, more white looking family ripped apart by the political situation, with the parents slowly and soberly and tearfully and with heavy Peter Jackson-esque solemn looking at the camera at every realization and revelation, but Lucas (rightfully) avoided that cliche and made the character more lighthearted and less mainstream human. So the comparison to Keanu and Liam and Sam L and Christensen are perfectly accurate. The character was fine, it's the portrayal people are whining about. The portrayal was better than any of the Jedi performers, including Obi-wan, and the character was amusing while still being relevant. Just as C3PO was in the first.

So now I've shown you the truth. I expect you to adjust your understanding appropriately. And did you notice how I worked Peter Jackson into the discussion just for you? Surely I earned credit for that.

[Orrex]

37. He symbolized that that George Lucas is a punk-assed dipshit

Of all the people I've ever heard speak about Star Wars, the person with the lamest, most unimpressive grasp of it is George Lucas. Since Jar Jar sprang fully formed from George's cloven skull, it follows that Jar Jar is therefore the lamest, most unimpressive character in the pantheon.


I admit that I don't see what you're getting at with your somewhat bizarre speculation about "a cute, more white looking family." So the opposite of "cute, more white looking" is anachronistic vaudeville minstrel show caricature? And this is preferable in some way?

The character was fine, it's the portrayal people are whining about.

Actually, that's a fairly interesting point. I would submit that since everything about Jar Jar was manufactured and rendered, the portrayal equates to the character in a way that more conventional "live-action" human performances do not.

[Danger Mouse]

4. OMG yes.

[driver8]

6. Ha Ha -- awesome!! n/t

[LynneSin]

7. It's 2010 and they are still dressing up as Star Wars characters?

Did I miss something?

[jobycom]

8. It's 2010 and priests still wear those ancient medieval costumes.

Same thing, basically.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

9. And Star Wars fans don't try to convince everybody that Luke Skywalker is real. -nt

[jobycom]

10. You don't know many Star Wars fans, do you?

:rofl:

[Rob H.]

11. You mean HE ISN'T?!?

:cry:

[blogslut]

12. ...

[Dr Morbius]

30. I like that.

I think my daughter will, too.

[proteus_lives]

29. Nice!

:thumbsup:

[Ikonoklast]

38. Tastes like chicken.

Really slimey, nasty, spoiled, green around the edges chicken.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. Not comic con, but you'll like it anyway...

[Richardo]

43. I beg to differ....THIS is the best Comic-Con picture.

Thank you, Adrienne.