And lo on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:32:37 +0100, Chambers  
<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Sat, 02 Aug 2008 05:11:51 +0100, Chambers  
>> <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:
>>> It was the sheer idiocy of the character.  It's the same reason I  
>>> don't like characters like Barney the Dinosaur, or movies like Dumb  
>>> and Dumber.
>>  But Barney's aimed at the young
>
> Not a valid excuse.  I've seen plenty of programming aimed at the young  
> that isn't idiotic in the slightest.

Would you deprive the idiot demographic?

>> and Dumb and Dumber is intentionally idiotic,
>
> Oh, so they were *trying* to be dumb... that really makes them less  
> dumb, doesn't it?
>
> Like I said, it's the sheer idiocy of it.  I don't care if they were  
> trying to be that way or not; actually, it's worse, because rather than  
> being something they can't avoid, they're intentionally doing something  
> that I don't like.

Then don't watch it. With a title like Dumb and Dumber are you expecting  
to see a biography of Proust. It's the idiotic characters that populate an  
otherwise non-idiotic show that you should be railing against, in this  
context Jar Jar serves no purpose that couldn't have been handed off to a  
less idiotic character.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message