Star War's Jar-Jar -- the good, the bad, the ugly

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roguish
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a certain fondness for the prequels, including Jar Jar and Naboo, if only because there was an attempt in those movies to present something new and unseen. The recent Disney reboots just seem to recycle familiar elements, plotlines and settings (desert planet, check; ice planet, check) in an embarrassingly familiar way. I think they’re running on nostalgia fumes with little or nothing to offer.
 
Star Wars seven was muddled and confused. Han and Leia as a divorced couple is totally alien to the spirit of the original movies. The great threat is some kind of superweapon that looks to me like somebody tried to copy the Death Star without actually knowing what the Death Star was.

I haven’t seen Star Wars eight and don’t intend to so can’t comment on it.
 
exnihilo said:
I don’t think he originally intended Luke and Leia to be siblings which is why we get the awful incestuous love story in Empire.
Click to expand...
The “love story” in Empire was between Han and Lea NOT Luke and Lea.
 
deMontfort said:
The “love story” in Empire was between Han and Lea NOT Luke and Lea.
Click to expand...
No, but in the first two movies there’s a love triangle between the three of them, with the audience waiting to see if Leia goes for Luke or Han, and the two of them one-upping each other in a friendly rivalry for her affections. This is before it is revealed that Luke and Leia are siblings, which I always felt came out of left field and was unnecessary. It does seem to lend credence to Exnihilo’s point.
 
Last edited:
tomarin said:
This is before it is revealed that Luke and Leia are siblings, which I always felt came out of left field and was unnecessary. It does seem to lend credence to Exnihilo’s point.
Click to expand...
Yep. The story is more than a little haphazard. Truth is, as an epic story Star Wars isn’t that good. It’s only passable. Let’s face it: Lucas is no Tolkien. As cinematography, it is much better – quite impressive in fact. As drama, again it’s only passable; it would’ve been better if it hadn’t been for so many unfortunate casting choices – oh, and bad dialogue!

I think the main reason Star Wars has been a huge success is simply that there is nothing else that compares to it. There is no other “space fantasy” out there, which is a little strange when you think about it, isn’t it? In spite of SW huge success noone has tried to create something similar. But that’s the way it is: we only have Star Wars, so that’s why we watch it, again and again. (Well, I do anyway.)
 
Last edited:
Roguish said:
The story is more than a little haphazard. Truth is, as an epic story Star Wars isn’t that good. It’s only passable
Click to expand...
I recall learning that “Luke, I am your father” was improvised. Vader was originally meant to be the murderer of Luke’s father. Obi-wan was telling the truth.
 
I subscribe. I used to like SW a lot. I did not see it live, I saw it later as a vintage cult sci fi film and loved it. At one point I even bought a book with pics from Return of the Jedi and read the novel version of the movies which was better than I had hoped for.
I was thrilled with the cast of episodes 1-3 and mildly enjoyed it. After skipping work with a colleqgue to see episode 3, the most dramatic it was said, and saw Obi Wan ride a lizzard and we both started laughing, I was cured of it. For good. No hard feelings behind but I would rather just go for an aimless walk than watch another SW movie or an old one again.
Last movie I saw was episode 7 and I loved the 3D effects and laughed again when the new villain took his helmet off.
Ok, fun story, but it is too funny to see people taking it seriously now.
 
Mary888 said:
Ok, fun story, but it is too funny to see people taking it seriously now.
Click to expand...
Some do take Star Wars pretty seriously. I’ve always enjoyed the movies—even the prequels and, yes, even Jar Jar. But I’ve never taken them that seriously. Perhaps that’s why I enjoyed the prequels. 😜
 
Personally I don’t see the hatred. He was goofy, yes, but no more so than R2D2 or C3P0 or Anakin Skywalker…

I think people who outright hate him are misplacing their disgust for the prequels by focusing on him as the object of their annoyance. 😛
 
For me, that is 99% wrong. Speaking as an editor and writer, sure, I’ve helped to whip up alien creatures, but Jar Jar? He ruined the plot, the pacing and other things, and he was a really bad creature design (I’m also an assistant art director). A very cool alien would have been fine, but the viewer didn’t get that. He got… that… stupid thing.
 
I enjoyed the prequels because Darth Vader was always the most fascinating character there. So to see him young and normal was fun. Then again thank God the screenplay became a meme of all the SW saga so I was freed.
 
Mary888 said:
I enjoyed the prequels because Darth Vader was always the most fascinating character there. So to see him young and normal was fun. Then again thank God the screenplay became a meme of all the SW saga so I was freed.
Click to expand...
Watching them now, I’d say Hayden Christiansen (and not Jar Jar) is the greatest obstacle to enjoying them. His acting, I mean. I wonder what was running through Euen MacGregor’s head when they were doing scenes together.
 
Last edited:
Lol! Or Natie Portman’s. Considering her theatre and film experience I bet she was regretting the part as she had to do it. No, it really was the script. At the end of part 3, out of the blue, Yoda says “all is lost now we must retreat”. You kiddin’ me? You are in the middle of a battle what is lost? Same Yoda who did not trust himself in episode 2 and asked a kid what to do and where to go. But he trusted himself enough to declare the battle lost while it was still going on.
Very flimsy… and inconsistent. The drama and tragedy articially perpetuated. There is very little that Hayden, Natalie and Ewan could have done at that point. I mean look, all are watching JarJar and he is not even a main character or popular. This says something about the story, right?
At least from episode 5 and on, no one gets the bored wandering eye’s attention except for the old characters and the faded charm they bring.
 
I think Natalie’s acting is just as wooden but she isn’t expected to carry the dramatic arc of the story the way he is. We have to believe he is incrementally shifting from good but angry to angry to pure evil, and it’s too much and too subtle for him to convey*. (I do often find myself wondering why the Padme character stays with him even after she learns that he’s been slaughtering defenceless children; it should be obvious at that point that he’s a homicidal maniac and not dear little Ani).

*James Dean would have done an interesting job.
 
Last edited:
Mary888 said:
Very flimsy… and inconsistent. The drama and tragedy articially perpetuated. There is very little that Hayden, Natalie and Ewan could have done at that point
Click to expand...
I’m sort of on the fence as to whether it was the acting or the script when it comes to Hayden Christiansen’s part. His descent into darkness always felt a little forced to me. And the way he looked at Padme was just sort of creepy. But maybe that’s what he was going for.

I liked the casting in most all the other characters. Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson, Samuel L. Jackson, even Natalie Portman—I thought they all did well.
 
Oh… James Dean would have been amazing in that part but he would have been way too old by the time the movie was made. Haha.
 
You’ve opened old wounds! I think I need to watch East of Eden again…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top