Tim Attwood wrote:
> I like SW Ep 1,

All right,

> Jar Jar Binks is a great character.

What smokest thou?

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > Jar Jar Binks is a great character.

> What smokest thou?

  I really can't see what's wrong with him.

  When I first saw the movie, I didn't find anything annoying or wrong
with him. It was only afterwards that I realized that people hate him.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> Jar Jar Binks is a great character.
> 
>> What smokest thou?
> 
>   I really can't see what's wrong with him.
> 
>   When I first saw the movie, I didn't find anything annoying or wrong
> with him. It was only afterwards that I realized that people hate him.

The part that I didn't like was that they gave him a comic relief role, 
which theretofore had been handled by R2D2 and C3PO.  Admittedly, he did 
advance the plot in small ways, but he was primarily comic relief.

The droids were funnier.  Jar-Jar's attempts at humor often failed, and 
there's little more annoying than an attempt a humor that fails.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> Jar Jar Binks is a great character.
> 
>> What smokest thou?
> 
>   I really can't see what's wrong with him.
> 
>   When I first saw the movie, I didn't find anything annoying or wrong
> with him. It was only afterwards that I realized that people hate him.
> 

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.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sat, 02 Aug 2008 05:11:51 +0100, Chambers  
<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:

> Warp wrote:
>> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>> Jar Jar Binks is a great character.
>>
>>> What smokest thou?
>>    I really can't see what's wrong with him.
>>    When I first saw the movie, I didn't find anything annoying or wrong
>> with him. It was only afterwards that I realized that people hate him.
>>
>
> 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 and Dumb and Dumber is intentionally  
idiotic, that's where Jar Jar fails; the humour in Star Wars was always  
incidental and oh look here's a character who's almost pure comic relief.

-- 
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

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:05:31 -0400, Warp wrote:

> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> > Jar Jar Binks is a great character.
> 
>> What smokest thou?
> 
>   I really can't see what's wrong with him.
> 
>   When I first saw the movie, I didn't find anything annoying or wrong
> with him. It was only afterwards that I realized that people hate him.

He was intended as a distraction to keep people from realizing how bad 
the film really was.

Lucas did an excellent job in the original three films of casting a 
*group* who could act together.  The dialogue wasn't always really good, 
but you could believe that these people could work together on their 
cause.

In ep1-ep3, I just didn't feel that was there.  Especially in ep1, 
however, because the lines were just so wooden and delivered without any 
emotive quality at all.

And then you thrown in a clown to distract from how bad it really is; 
some people said it was racial stereotyping (I think that's a stretch 
personally) that made it that much worse.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> however, because the lines were just so wooden and delivered without any 
> emotive quality at all.

I had heard that the actors complained there was so much green-screening 
that they had nothing to go on. Not unlike Neo or The Black Hole.

On the other hand, Speed Racer was apparently 100% green-screen, and 
that wasn't *too* bad. Overacted, perhaps, but ....

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:53:54 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> however, because the lines were just so wooden and delivered without
>> any emotive quality at all.
> 
> I had heard that the actors complained there was so much green-screening
> that they had nothing to go on. Not unlike Neo or The Black Hole.

Yeah, I'd heard that as well.  But even still, lots of actors have to 
deal with films that are largely green-screened and still do a far better 
job then the ensemble did in ep1.

> On the other hand, Speed Racer was apparently 100% green-screen, and
> that wasn't *too* bad. Overacted, perhaps, but ....

 But I think Speed Racer was *intended* to be overacted.....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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.

> 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.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

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