29

Everyone seems to hate Jar Jar Binks. So why did George Lucas create him? The story of Binks and his people doesn't really contribute anything to the story, and I find that the parts involving Binks and his people are annoying or boring, adding unnecessary length to The Phantom Menace (which is boring enough with all that trade federation stuff and the endless pod racing).

So why exactly did he do it? What necessary element did Lucas feel that Binks was contributing that Star Wars would have lacked otherwise?

Has he ever said anything directly about Binks?

Rand al'Thor
  • 134,408
  • 65
  • 607
  • 854
Florian
  • 265
  • 1
  • 3
  • 6
  • 14
    Same reason as the Ewoks... – DavidS Sep 11 '15 at 08:27
  • 13
    Never understood the hate against Jar Jar. I believe he was a funny sidekick. And yes, he did contribute to the story. – F.P Sep 11 '15 at 08:45
  • 9
    I've always seen the whole Gungan story as a tool to show what kind of ruler Padmé is. I think it does a pretty good job at that. – Kevin Sep 11 '15 at 10:36
  • 8
    The Ewoks may be cutesy and annoying, but they contribute to the plot, by showing the heroes the back way to the Imperial bunker and then killing a whole lot of stormtroopers. Shameless self-promotion: I've argued Padme's alliance with the Gungans is a strong point in Ep1, but Jar Jar himself is almost completely superfluous. – Royal Canadian Bandit Sep 11 '15 at 10:55
  • Because he hates the fans. Anti-life justifies his hate. – Liesmith Sep 11 '15 at 12:00
  • 2
    No one ever accused George Lucas of being a good writer. Remember the screenplays for episodes V and VI were written by Lawrence Kasdan, who is one of the best screenwriters of the 80s. Lucas certainly created the story line and broad strokes of how it would play out, but a good story idea, or more to the point, a good character idea, can be ruined by bad writing. – Todd Wilcox Sep 11 '15 at 12:20
  • 3
    Does C-3PO really contribute anything to the story? What about Chewbacca? – Holger Sep 11 '15 at 14:19
  • Jar Jar hate always seems to be one of those things that a vocal portion of people like to rant about. I'd guess most people really don't care for him too strongly in one way or another. I don't hate him any more than the quirky C-3PO. Jar Jar is just doofy. Is it unwarranted at times? Sure. – Broots Waymb Sep 11 '15 at 14:43
  • 1
    I can't believe nobody has pointed out the racism issue: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1999-06-05/news/9906050180_1_jar-jar-binks-phantom – zipquincy Sep 11 '15 at 15:24
  • @zipquincy - Mindwin did in comments to phantom42's answer. And let's not forget the accent of the Trade Federation envoys. -- Anyway, this kind of thing happens when directors become too big for their staff to effectively criticize their ideas --> Elf/Dwarf "romance" in The Hobbit anyone :p – user23715 Sep 11 '15 at 15:31
  • 5
    @Holger: C-3PO doesn't do much on his own, but functions as a sidekick/translator for R2-D2, who certainly does contribute. And when C-3PO isn't doing anything interesting, the script is ruthless in getting him out of the way: He is dismembered on Bespin, and literally turned off in Kenobi's house and when the Millennium Falcon hides on the asteroid. (If only Jar-Jar had an off switch, or at least a mute button...) As for Chewbacca, he arguably saves the entire Rebellion when he captures the Imperial AT-AT on Endor, and that's just for starters. – Royal Canadian Bandit Sep 11 '15 at 15:40
  • @RoyalCanadianBandit -- Not to mention that, for the first movie, the story is told largely (entirely?) from R2 and 3PO's POV. – user23715 Sep 11 '15 at 15:58
  • @user23715: Indeed. And now I think of it, the roles are reversed in the Endor sequence of Ep6, with C-3PO achieving much more. The scenes with C-3PO and the Ewoks are (a) funnier than anything Jar-Jar ever did, and (b) advance the plot, as he is instrumental in getting the Ewoks' help. Although Threepio had a point; it is somewhat unethical to manipulate a Stone Age people by impersonating one of their gods, especially if you're persuading them to make war on the Galactic Empire... – Royal Canadian Bandit Sep 11 '15 at 16:03
  • @zipquincy the rolling stone article i posted in my answer has a quote from lucas about the accent portion of the racism issue. i didn't mention it in the answer because it's not pertinent to the question as asked. – phantom42 Sep 11 '15 at 16:09
  • 1
    @Holger You are certainly right about Chewie as he wasn't even awarded a medal at the end of Ep.4 – Hagen von Eitzen Sep 11 '15 at 16:11
  • 3
    @FlorianPeschka you [censored] – Alec Teal Sep 11 '15 at 16:42
  • 1
    @RoyalCanadianBandit Jar-Jar made very important contributions as well. – Malcolm Sep 11 '15 at 18:10
  • @FlorianPeschka you silly troll... – njzk2 Sep 11 '15 at 18:23
  • 2
    Obviously, this movie about trade disputes is for little kids! If there's one thing little kids love, it's senators and their political intrigue. DUH! That reminds me: man, I really don't like George Lucas. – Meat Trademark Sep 11 '15 at 19:13
  • @MeatTrademark the trade disputes plot is possibly why lucas felt like he needed comic relief such as jar jar to begin with - something to help keep the kids attentions. – phantom42 Sep 11 '15 at 21:04
  • @phantom42 But his claim that it's a kids movie seems ridiculous given that subject matter. Trade disputes? I think it's more pandering than anything. Trying to please everyone and mostly only pleasing the little kids who can't see what a hot mess it is. At least one 6-year-old mentioned below likes it and Jar Jar. Me? I can't watch it without the RiffTrax commentary. – Meat Trademark Sep 11 '15 at 22:58
  • 1
    @RoyalCanadianBandit As Malcolm says, Jar Jar made about as important contributions to the plot as the Ewoks. Moreover, in both cases, it’s not the existence of Jar Jar/the Ewoks that gets people all het up, but their portrayal. And that is irrelevant to their contributions. Jar Jar didn’t have to have flappy ears and a funny accent to bring about the Amidala/Gungan alliance, and the Ewoks didn’t have to be freakish, grunty little furballs to help the Heroes find and take down the Imperial bunker. Their functions are separate from their portrayals. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Sep 11 '15 at 23:32
  • Because he's a schmuck. – Wad Cheber Sep 12 '15 at 00:24
  • This question is *definitely not primarily opinion based!* I can see how people may have construed that from the title (which I have now edited), but the question is asking about whether Lucas ever said why he created Jar Jar, not why we think he created him! – Often Right Sep 12 '15 at 01:18
  • @N_Soong - Even if that's true, it's also a dupe. – Wad Cheber Sep 12 '15 at 02:50
  • @WadCheber yes, I agree it's a dupe, but I'm just making the point that it's definitely not 'primarily opinion based' - just really annoys me when people don't bother to read the whole question and judge it by it's title – Often Right Sep 12 '15 at 03:37

4 Answers4

35

For the laughs...

The Wikipedia page on Jar Jar explains (emphasis mine)

Star Wars creator George Lucas stated that he feels there is a section of the fanbase who get upset with aspects of Star Wars because "[t]he movies are for children but they don't want to admit that... There is a small group of fans that do not like comic sidekicks. They want the films to be tough like The Terminator, and they get very upset and opinionated about anything that has anything to do with being childlike."

The above quote is sourced from this interview. This makes it pretty clear that Lucas had intended Jar Jar, at least partially to be comic relief. This seems to have failed for most of the audience.

... and for the kids

So one aspect was definitely as comic relief. But the other aspect, as Wiki explains, is:

Rob Coleman, who was the lead on the Industrial Light & Magic animation team, warned Lucas that the team thought Jar Jar's character came across poorly. Lucas told him that he specifically put Jar Jar in the film to appeal to small children twelve or under

Often Right
  • 69,181
  • 37
  • 312
  • 542
  • an astute answer – Fattie Sep 11 '15 at 13:40
  • 1
    Your second link doesn't go to an interview or have that quote anywhere on the page. – phantom42 Sep 11 '15 at 13:57
  • 8
    "Lucas told him that he specifically put Jar Jar in the film to appeal to small children twelve or under" - and it works. My 6 year old has seen a few of the Star Wars movies, and says Episode 1 is her favorite, specifically because of Jar Jar. – Scott Whitlock Sep 11 '15 at 16:23
  • 1
    Kids love politics. That's what I' always sa- wait. THIS MAKES NO SENSE!! A MOVIE ABOUT TRADE AGREEMENTS IS FOR LITTLE KIDS?! (Looks at ceiling like an Episode IV Vader:) NO!!!!! – Meat Trademark Sep 11 '15 at 19:20
  • 3
    My 6-year-old also loves Jar Jar, but she doesn't go to conventions or post on Internet forums. I think the assumption that he misses for "most of the audience" could be a false impression. – brian_o Sep 11 '15 at 20:20
  • @brian_o -- No, because virtually all of today's 6-year-olds will become adults and change their minds drastically. Happened to me and all my friends and anyone else I've ever asked over the age of 14. – user23715 Sep 11 '15 at 21:44
  • 1
    @Meat The movies are also for children. Must any movie that deals with politics automatically eschew all comedy and lightheartedness and only target politically minded adults? Of course not. Politics and war are the two overarching themes in the Star Wars movies, but they’re perfectly watchable by children all the same because they’re specifically geared towards both adults and children. Jar Jar is just one of the elements geared towards children. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Sep 11 '15 at 23:21
  • @JanusBahsJacquet Please note I was addressing the answer above, specifically "George Lucas stated that he feels there is a section of the fanbase who get upset with aspects of Star Wars because "[t]he movies are for children but they don't want to admit that..." Armed with this knowledge, hopefully my snarky humor makes sense. I wasn't just blathering without cause. (PS- I agree with your comment below the OP. I hate Jar Jar and its portrayal, but it did serve a purpose. (I refer to Jar Jar in a gender-free fashion, like I would any garbage. [adjusts tie] Thank you, I'm outta here!)) – Meat Trademark Sep 11 '15 at 23:51
  • @Meat Yes, I realised that—my point was that Lucas’ words don’t necessarily mean that Star Wars are children’s movies as such. The aspect of the fan base that Lucas is talking about doesn’t want to admit that Star Wars are movies made to be enjoyed by children as well—the ‘also’ in my first comment is, to me, implicit in Lucas’ statement. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Sep 11 '15 at 23:54
  • @phantom42 oh doesn't it? Sorry - my bad! – Often Right Sep 12 '15 at 00:35
24

Lucas believes that all characters exist in the stories to move the plot, Jar Jar included.

Lucas was quoted as saying

"The characters are only there to make the story move forward . . . their personalities revolve around the plot," the soft-spoken mogul explained. "In 'Episode I,' Jar Jar uses his ties to the Jedi to bring together two disparate societies, the Gungans and Naboo. Therefore, he served the plot."

This continues in Episode 2 as Jar Jar inadvertently helps set Palpatine up for his rise to power by moving that the senate grant Palpatine emergency powers.

In an earlier interview, Lucas admitted that Jar Jar also serves as intentional comic relief.

Lucas doesn't care too terribly much that some folks have a problem with Jar Jar. "I think the comic-relief character is an important dramatic device," he says. "Some of the fans that want The Phantom Menace to be The Terminator don't like the idea that there are comic characters in it. I certainly am not going to make a grim bloodfest out of Star Wars."

phantom42
  • 134,387
  • 74
  • 573
  • 831
  • 12
    Merchandising.. – Jakob Sep 11 '15 at 06:46
  • 6
    The trouble is, Jar-Jar does not in fact establish any ties between the Naboo and Gungans. Padme does that herself, by going into the swamp and talking to the Gungan chief in person. Okay, Jar-Jar tells her how to get there, but the same thing could have been accomplished by an inanimate object like a map. His screen time is vastly disproportionate to his actual effect on the story. – Royal Canadian Bandit Sep 11 '15 at 11:00
  • 15
    You'll note that I never said any of this was objectively correct. I specifically prefaced this answer with the words "Lucas believes". – phantom42 Sep 11 '15 at 11:03
  • 3
    @phantom42: Yes, I appreciate that. My above comment was a criticism of Lucas, not you. :-) – Royal Canadian Bandit Sep 11 '15 at 11:07
  • 12
    Wait, Jar Jar was supposed to be comic relief? Guess they should have made him funny, then. – Todd Wilcox Sep 11 '15 at 12:19
  • 3
    @ToddWilcox the first time I watched the movie he seemed like a bad ethnical joke (the kind that makes you facepalm till your nose hurts). The impression only got reinforced on every viewing afterwards. – Mindwin Remember Monica Sep 11 '15 at 14:27
  • @Mindwin: For once, I'm glad that an aspect of a film was lost in translation to my native language. – O. R. Mapper Sep 11 '15 at 14:37
  • @Jakob "Moirchandizing!" Obviously, I'm no Mel Brooks. – corsiKa Sep 11 '15 at 15:06
  • Jar-Jar the Prequel! – DVK-on-Ahch-To Sep 11 '15 at 17:46
19

So why exactly did he do it?

Out of canon answer

From a plot perspective, something has to drive Anakin to the dark side. Why use character development when you can have no character development and stupid characters Jar Jar?

Having a Jar Jar like influence around someone's youth traumatized Anakin. Jar Jar was around for a large amount of his formative years and a constant irritant. He worked closely with Anakin and Palpatine during his youth and childhood while Palpatine gained influence with Amidala. This influence eventually is enough that when the moment was right, Jar Jar could suggest the following plot device:

It's a clear desa Separatists made a pact witha desa Federation du Trade. Senators! Dellow felegates! In response to this direct threat to the Republic, mesa propose that the Senate give immediately emergency powers to the Supreme Chancellor!

From a plot perspective, a character such as Jar Jar was needed - no one would believe anyone else could suggest such things. A stupid, easily manipulated senator was required. This is why Palpatine had been building a relationship to manipulate him and ultimately control him. The secondary purpose is that by keeping Jar Jar around Anakin for his childhood, he is wearing Anakin down, making him more vulnerable to the eventual turn to the dark side. Being forced to be around Jar Jar makes Anakin angry and during his Jedi training, burying these feelings results in a deep well of anger Palpatine is filling for years.

Anakin is forced to turn to Amidala in light of the trauma he is forced to go through during his childhood due to Jar Jar. This is necessary in order to make Anakin's terrible relational dialog make any sense at all only slightly less bad. These repressed memories drive him seek relational comfort and consolation from Amidala, because she too has experienced the horrible effect of Jar Jar. The absolutely awful dialog conversations they have are a result of his repressed childhood memories, her interactions with Jar Jar, and his attempts to cope with these memories.

This repression is ultimately fulfilled when Vader allows Tarkin to blow up an entire planet just to get rid of Jar Jar.

enderland
  • 6,611
  • 8
  • 34
  • 58
0

Compare Jar Jar Binks to C-3PO.

Both characters are extremely similar to each other conceptually and play a similar role in their respective story.

Both are mostly useless in general, but are situationally useful enough to take along. (C-3PO can talk to anything and Jar Jar can guild the Jedi to the Gungan people.)

Both are rather "goofy", but C-3PO is a gold-plated droid (cool!), and Jar Jar is a floppy eared something or other (eh).

Michael Richardson
  • 3,121
  • 1
  • 19
  • 22