By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - How Jar Jar Binks could have been better

highwaystar101 on 02 May 2010
MontanaHatchet said:
highwaystar101 said:
MontanaHatchet said:
highwaystar101 said:
MontanaHatchet said:

I'm not getting uppity about it. It just seemed kind of shameless.

And do you want to know something? I really don't give two shits.

People quote things like the Simpsons constantly. I thought quoting a viral video wouldn't exactly be bad.

If you think that I'm shameless, then so be it...

Umm...

I'm going to ask you something here. Don't be offended.

What's wrong with you? I don't think I'm being overly aggressive here or anything, and you're being so defensive you'd think I'm attacking all your deepest beliefs. People do quote The Simpsons, but that's a cultural phenomenon. It's different.

Whatever. I didn't know you'd be so offended.

You called me shameless, that's pretty offensive Montana.

I'm not acting as though you offended my deepest beliefs. However, I am sticking up for myself because I don't think quoting a joke warrants you calling me shameless.

Also, I fail to see how quoting a joke from the Simpsons is any different from quoting a viral video from Youtube. People quote, say, '=3' videos all the time, and those videos are about as popular as the phantom menace video.

I didn't call you shameless at all. I called your quoting shameless, which was somewhat of a joke in itself. Maybe it's my fault for not including a face with it. I think that's kind of pretentious.

And I'm done with this argument. It's boring. 

Calling my actions shameless is in effect calling me shameless. But if you meant it as a joke and I took the wrong way, then I apologise and retract my statement.

I really can't be bothered either, it's pointless.



Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 07 May 2010
Scoobes said:
highwaystar101 said:
How could Jar Jar Binks have been a better character? I have an idea, and it involves Carbon Monoxide poisoning in the first scene.

Also, WTF was the deal with Qui Gon Jin? What a pointless character he was. They should have combined him with Obi Wan Kenobi to form a new character called Obi Wan Kenobi.

Don't know if this is true, but I remember reading somewhere that the original character for Qui Gon Jin was supposed to be in all 3 of the prequels and have a more Mace Windu type role. Unfortunately the actor didn't want to do all 3; something to do with everyone else playing with the lightsabers and making immature lightsaber sounds...

From what I understand, there are several completed scripts for Episode I that were all commissioned by George Lucas and included most of the same characters to various degrees. The general story line of these scripts is supposed to be remarkably similar (because George Lucas wanted certain visually impressive action sequences) but the specifics of the scripts are drastically different.

While there are few people who know the specific details, it is rumoured that many of these scripts were rejected by George Lucas because they were simply too dark. Elements like having Princess Amidala become Queen Amidala because the Trade Federation killed her parents and forced her coronation because they believed she would be easy to control, and Anikin Skywalker being a teenage anti-hero, were scrapped because they weren’t family friendly.



twesterm on 07 May 2010

What!? Jar Jar is the key to the whole movie!



 

Garnett on 07 May 2010
stof said:
Am I the only one that thought that as stupid and uneccessary and unfunny as Jar Jar was, General Grievous was a far worse and more ridiculous character. Sure Jar Jar was written in to the script just to make small children laugh, but General Grievous was just written in to the script to make small children say "wow, he's cool!"

Come to think of it, just about everything was just to make small children say "Wow that's cool!"

He was first brought up in the Cartoon.

Maul was bad ass for no reason, he got owned in Episode 1.

Qui Gon was a meat shield.

 

 



*Remember when the world was supposed to end on May 21st, 2011? Well click here to see our short parody video of it [not]ending*

Mr Khan on 07 May 2010
Garnett said:
stof said:
Am I the only one that thought that as stupid and uneccessary and unfunny as Jar Jar was, General Grievous was a far worse and more ridiculous character. Sure Jar Jar was written in to the script just to make small children laugh, but General Grievous was just written in to the script to make small children say "wow, he's cool!"

Come to think of it, just about everything was just to make small children say "Wow that's cool!"

He was first brought up in the Cartoon.

Maul was bad ass for no reason, he got owned in Episode 1.

Qui Gon was a meat shield.

 

 

Grievous and Maul should have been the same character, as they existed for similar reasons: to be badass, relentless Jedi-killers. In their limited context of use (in the movies at any rate) the two characters felt like wastes.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.