Mind-Blowing Star Wars Jar Jar Fan Theory

I've read it, but much like the Ring Theory, it doesn't add up for me.

Pretty clever reasoning, though.

It's a stupid theory and I'm pretty sure it was just a joke to begin with, but the internet happened.

Darth Binks, it's kinda makes a sick sort of sense.

I'm regretting just thinking about it, let alone reading it.

I've read it, but much like the Ring Theory, it doesn't add up for me.

I couldn't even get through that one, it was so full of bull. If your space adventure film needs to be accompanied by some pompous film student thesis explaining that, "it's actually brilliant, but it's just over your head", then your film has ultimately failed because you failed to communicate your idea effectively.

I've read it, but much like the Ring Theory, it doesn't add up for me.

I couldn't even get through that one, it was so full of bull. If your space adventure film needs to be accompanied by some pompous film student thesis explaining that, "it's actually brilliant, but it's just over your head", then your film has ultimately failed because you failed to communicate your idea effectively.

So, basically you're saying that "how dare movies have a deeper meaning than what is on the surface" or even "how dare someone write a movie for people with IQs higher than 60"

I'm guessing you've never seen things like "Every Frame A Painting"

which shows the breakdown of scenes in some movies to show that there is more in the subtlety than is picked up by the average viewer.

So, basically you're saying that "how dare movies have a deeper meaning than what is on the surface" or even "how dare someone write a movie for people with IQs higher than 60"

Pretty sure that wasn't his point.

For my own part, my problems with the Ring Theory and Darth Binks are separate: the former conflates complexity with quality, and the latter isn't backed up by the resulting movies. Specifically for Darth Binks, based on "Death of the Author," even if it's true in the mind of the creator, it didn't make the final cut for the films and so isn't canon. It's an interesting interpretation of the character and can be a fun reading, but it never became an actual plot point.

I also had a problem that was the same for both, namely: I don't think GL could have kept his mouth shut about either one for over a decade. If Darth Binks was true, there's no way he could have resisted having some direct indication of it being the truth in the film itself. He definitely wouldn't have gone for so long without talking about it in an interview, either.

I've read it, but much like the Ring Theory, it doesn't add up for me.

I couldn't even get through that one, it was so full of bull. If your space adventure film needs to be accompanied by some pompous film student thesis explaining that, "it's actually brilliant, but it's just over your head", then your film has ultimately failed because you failed to communicate your idea effectively.

So, basically you're saying that "how dare movies have a deeper meaning than what is on the surface" or even "how dare someone write a movie for people with IQs higher than 60"

Wow! That was incredibly douchey.

TPM isn't ******* Casablanca and you know it. Those movies are commercial bull designed to sell toys. Just because some asshat with more time than sense writes 20k words about how in some vague and obscure way the prequels fit this concept of design doesn't make the films any good. They are poorly written schlock and putting a tinfoil wrapper on that piece of **** doesn't make it any better.

I've read it, but much like the Ring Theory, it doesn't add up for me.

I couldn't even get through that one, it was so full of bull. If your space adventure film needs to be accompanied by some pompous film student thesis explaining that, "it's actually brilliant, but it's just over your head", then your film has ultimately failed because you failed to communicate your idea effectively.

So, basically you're saying that "how dare movies have a deeper meaning than what is on the surface" or even "how dare someone write a movie for people with IQs higher than 60"

I'm guessing you've never seen things like "Every Frame A Painting"

which shows the breakdown of scenes in some movies to show that there is more in the subtlety than is picked up by the average viewer.

While I agree that there is definitely more to movies than what we see at face value, I think it is a pretty big reach to try and defend the prequel trilogies as brilliant filmmaking.

In general though, yes, the average viewer is not going to catch a lot of what some films do to get their message across. A lot of it is subtle and the viewer is accepting it without even knowing on a subliminal level.

For my own part, my problems with the Ring Theory and Darth Binks are separate: the former conflates complexity with quality...

I agree they are separate (Darth Binks is "tongue-in-cheek", I find it completely uninteresting and not my kind of humour), but I don't think a case is being made for complexity = quality with the Ring Theory. Or at least, that would not be my argument. Personally I like the "Ring Theory", but not because I think it makes the individual movies better. Rather, it's simply interesting to me how somebody can create something that complicated and filled with that much symbolism, and symbolism of a depth that encompasses the entirety of the themes he's trying to portray. It has a symbolic depth equal to the level of world-building in the visual background. I find it an immensely impressive feat, even while I roll my eyes and cringe over the crappy dialogue, and weird character development and relationships.

As a writer friend of mine, who is NOT a Star Wars fan, said: "You have to admire his commitment to composition."

Just because some asshat with more time than sense writes 20k words about how in some vague and obscure way the prequels fit this concept of design doesn't make the films any good. They are poorly written schlock and putting a tinfoil wrapper on that piece of **** doesn't make it any better.

IMO, the “design” and the execution of the movies are two separate things.

I find it … somewhat plausible … that GL really did intend for something kinda semi sorta like the “Ring Theory” to be played out in the prequels. That would be the “design” part.

As for execution, especially in TPM? Oy. He clearly spent way too much time trying to drag the entire movie industry along with him to his “Nerdvana” of 100% digital capture, production, and projection and digital effects to fix all the things that he was not competent to get captured on the film in the first place. If he had simply stuck to being a Producer for that movie and let someone more competent be the Director, I think we could have had much, much better results.

Didn't Robot Chicken already do the Darth Jar Jar theory?

I don't think GL could have kept his mouth shut about either one for over a decade. If Darth Binks was true, there's no way he could have resisted having some direct indication of it being the truth in the film itself. He definitely wouldn't have gone for so long without talking about it in an interview, either.

We are talking about the same George Lucas who, to this day, insists Han didn't shoot first, right?

I have a friend that I consider the biggest Star Wars expert I have ever encountered, and that includes people on this board. He is just over the top, ridiculously knowledgeable. He had this to say when someone showed him the theory on Facebook:

"I've seen this pop up a few times in the last week. I give the author credit for writing an interesting article, but that's about it. This idea does not line up with any material I have regarding the conceptual creation of the prequels.

The article's statement about the "hidden" Yoda-like character is completely false. Palpatine was that character. He was seen to be weak and easily manipulated by everyone in the Senate and was elected as a pawn. Nobody saw him for what he was until it was too late.

In terms of Campbell's mythology references, Jar Jar is clearly intended to serve as the Jester archetype since 3-PO and R2 (the Jester's of the OT) do not serve those roles in Episode I and there is nobody else to do so. They do however return to those roles in Episode II where Jar Jar becomes less prominent.

I hold to the idea that Jar Jar was intended to appeal to young children; much like the ones George Lucas had at the time of the prequels. Katie Lucas was 11 when Episode I released and Jett was 6.

TLDR: No. "

Just because some asshat with more time than sense writes 20k words about how in some vague and obscure way the prequels fit this concept of design doesn't make the films any good. They are poorly written schlock and putting a tinfoil wrapper on that piece of **** doesn't make it any better.

IMO, the “design” and the execution of the movies are two separate things.

I find it … somewhat plausible … that GL really did intend for something kinda semi sorta like the “Ring Theory” to be played out in the prequels. That would be the “design” part.

As for execution, especially in TPM? Oy. He clearly spent way too much time trying to drag the entire movie industry along with him to his “Nerdvana” of 100% digital capture, production, and projection and digital effects to fix all the things that he was not competent to get captured on the film in the first place. If he had simply stuck to being a Producer for that movie and let someone more competent be the Director, I think we could have had much, much better results.

Even if you accept the idea that Lucas was attempting to do this whole ring approach despite the lack of evidence that he was. Then you still have to contend that he has major links out of order. For example:

In Clones there is a bar scene where Kenobi cuts an arm off. Clearly designed to mirror the original cantina scene in ANH, but by the ring theory it should have been in Revenge. Then at the beginning of Revenge we have a throne room scene that mirrors the confrontation between Luke and Palpatine in Jedi, but again it's out of place, in relation to the ring theory it should have been in TPM

Basically, my position is that the author of the ring theory is simply giving Lucas too much credit as a filmmaker and writer. His characters are uninteresting and his plot is a mess. That doesn't have anything to do with film techniques, it's just an inherent lack of quality.

So either George is trying something massively ambitious and failing or he is a sellout exposing himself as a hack who basically got lucky early in his career and is unable to recreate the magic that was the original trilogy. I believe the evidence points to the later.

The similarity between Star Wars movies is hardly surprising; Lucas was a big fan of that kind of thing. Thus why the Episode 1 Destruction of the space station bore a lot of similarity with Luke blowing up the death star, a navie boy getting in over his head but doing fine anyway because the force guided him. That and kids really loved seeing a seven year old blow up a space station. As is the echos being rescuing a princess/queen, the badass antagonist that is ritually scarred/cybered up and the death of the master Qui-Gon/Obi-Wan. The only thing it missed was a rogues charm with a more sterilsed Jedi casting and replaced CP-3O with Jar Jar Binks. At least the former had some functional applications and had actually been out of his functional depth.

Luca's really loves those nods back to the old trilogy, even if they aren't exactly the same (they killed Darth Maul off in episode 1 and I for one was really glad for that. As much as he was an engine of destruction, he lacked the cunning to be more then just sidious's little weapon.)

... unable to recreate the magic that was the original trilogy.

...sez you...

We are talking about the same George Lucas who, to this day, insists Han didn't shoot first, right?

In his head canon, that’s the way it played out.

And if you go back and look at the original LaserDiscs which were produced from the original theatrical release, and you scan through that scene frame-by-frame, you’ll see a failed squib that fizzles right next to Han’s head just two frames before the whole screen goes white from where Han supposedly fires.

The only problem is that everyone else in the world saw a different movie than the one that GL had in his head.

And he tried to fix that problem on several occasions, each time to worse effect than the last.

I have a friend that I consider the biggest Star Wars expert I have ever encountered, and that includes people on this board.

Jason Geyer is my resident Star Wars expert. He also happens to be my brother-in-law.

I’ve never asked his opinion on the “Ring Theory” with regards to GL, but I will do so and report back here.

I have actually thought about using Darth Binks in my own game..... The great Evil Nemesis

Hooray for Jar Jar and down with all the snots who hate him

My take on it when I saw Darth Binks. "Interesting and fun fan theory, but there is no way GL was going that route." Basically, the theory writer was taking Binks's actions as a kid's comic prop and audience stand-in as intentional world building. The reason why he was involved in all of the important conversations, and had something to say, was so that we as the audience could follow along. Someone needs to say the stupid stuff so that the stuff everyone in the universe knows can be said outloud to teach that character (and the audience) what was going on.

Well with the upcoming Nexus of Power supplement we will have official stats for Gungans.

Well with the upcoming Nexus of Power supplement we will have official stats for Gungans.

OMG!!! FFG is in on it! They know that Darth Binks will be in the next movie and they are making it possible to create that character! Why else would they put Gungans in a F&D book first?!? It's true! It's all true!