My favorite piece of evidence for the Darth Jar Jar theory is that George Lucas was HEAVILY inspired by many sci-fi and fantasy novels written throughout the decades, and there is one character in the Xanth series who's name is Bink, and who is also a clumsy crazy lucky guy, but it turns out that his luck is actually the power of his magic working in mysterious ways. Now replace magic with the force and Jar Jar BINKS with Bink, and the similarities are uncanny.
+Gnoggin Sounds real flimsy in comment-form, Gnoggs. Would be real doubtful if I hadn't already watched your awesome video on the topic. Which, by the way, is the best video on this theory I've seen anywhere thus far.
Your video was the first I saw, I still think it is a masterpiece of a theory video. I showed it to my cousins and they were fully convinced, as was I.
The Darth Binks theory is one of my single favorite fan theories of all time, simply because it changes one of the most hated characters in Star Wars into one of the most intriguing, if you choose to believe it. I kind of wish Idea channel had shown more of the supporting evidence, like the scene where Obi-wan, Qui-gon, and Jar Jar are in the submersible: the ship is obviously in trouble from a large fish when suddenly an even larger fish swoops in, devours it, and leaves, paying the ship no mind at all. If you watch closely, Jar Jar appears to utterly blank out just before the much larger fish comes rushing in to save the day. It's posited that Jar Jar actually mind-jacked that fish into saving them, and I think they're onto something. Another thing: isn't it odd how cynical and bitter Obi-wan sounds when he says, "I don't believe there's such thing as 'luck'"? Considering his experiences with Jar Jar in the prequel trilogies, one would think he would absolutely believe in luck; unless he had a specific reason not to, such as the knowledge that they had all been played from the start.
Ya but I a lot of George Lucas's original plans were scrapped according to the theory. I think George Lucas may have changed a lot of things. Its also funny how there are hints all throughout TCW. One in particular talks about an ancient Gungan art using mind control yada yada. I need to find that episode. Another episode involving Jar Jar impersonating a jedi wearing a robe and its funny he mentioned the underwater scene in TPM because there is a scene in that episode where Jar Jar somehow "tames" a giant sea monster, coincidently.. ifs thats not a little nudge from George Lucas, I don't know what is. If George Lucas comes clean and this theory turns out to have absolutely no creedence whatsoever I would be shocked.
+Mike the Media Dragon I never liked him, but i've never had an outright problem with him. I feel like Jar Jar was just the scapegoat for a multitude of problems the prequels had including bad pacing, problematic plot, breaking of original trilogy lore, bad directing (and subsequent bad acting) and weak relevance to the universe as a whole (at least for Phantom).
I believe that Lucas made Jar jar ' s original purpose to be sith, but with the backlash jar jar has brought on, driving Lucas to do the rewriting that he admits to doing DURING the filming of the second episode. All the faults of the prequles coming from over demanding and loud fans who cried hard enough about eating green beans to change the dinner menu into week old refrigerated hot dogs.
George Lucas openly said in interviews that the final product of the prequels differed from his original vision. That he changed plot threads in response to the backlash to the first film. This could be a real impetus to try to decipher what his intent with the characters was. or maybe just the fact that so many fans invested their time and money into seeing all three in the cinema, despite the fact that they were repeatedly disappointed - I know I was.
To me the thing that makes the Jar Jar sith theory so compelling is that it's so absurdly well supported. I do believe it, and I think the most important aspect in my experience of it is the citation of quotes from both Lucas and the twitter feed of the actor who played Jar Jar that can be read as alluding to this interpretation, and its subsequent revision. The Jar Jar sith theory feels like a real, substantial "could-have-been," were it not for the failure of courage on the part of the man in charge. It makes the story better, sure, but it also makes the history of the trilogy better. It's less dissonant to think "Lucas, who put together Star Wars, could have done it again but caved" than "Lucas, who put together Star Wars, also made these other terrible movies because he's basically got nothing in him that can still write."
Lucas did admit he made Last Minuite changes to ep. 2 and 3 based on fan reaction to ep. 1, seeing that Jar Jar is one of the most hated characters in ep.1 it's very likely those changes had to do with Jar Jar. So it's almost confirmed that Jar Jar was meant to play a bigger role in the prequels, but the better question is he going to play a big role in the new Trilogy
+Ryan Hau I doubt he was meant to be a secret antagonist however. If he was then George did really mess up not continuing that. I think that Jar Jar got less of a roll partly because he was not so important for the overall story.
+Cythil Keep in mind that the Prequels overall were a mess up, even after they downplayed Jar Jar's role in the rest of that Trilogy. Another complaint for the prequals in that it seem like they are just making it up as they go along and hardly going by any ideas Lucas had when the Original Trilogy was being made, tho as I pointed out above Lucas did kinda admit that with atleast 2 movies. The main problem with the prequels is that during story development, Lucas surrounds himself with nothing but Yes Men, as in people who don't have the balls to tell him when he have a bad idea, tho if the Darth Jar Jar theory in correct, then it shows that Ironically Lucas was a Yes Man himself.
Ryan Hau Yeah that would be a great irony. I think that a big part of what made the original star wars so great was that he had to rework his vision and was not surrounded by Yes Men.
The thing is, people only didn't like the character they thought Jar Jar was. If they discovered he was not actually an idiotic character, they would have understood his purpose. So why would Lucas change that? That would be removing any redemption the character could/would have had.
This is my favorite theory in recent years for anything. It would have made the prequels absolutely amazing if he was revealed later on once things can't stop.
Star Wars is written from mythical story telling. Lucas is a fan of all that. Jar Jar is based on the character Bink from Xanth. A character who was banished from his home because of "magical abilities" who uses magic to shield himself. Also based on the Mule, from a story of Foundation and Empire. The character was a bumbling idiot who actually secretly acted stupid to work his way to rule the Galaxy
Imagine a movie with plot holes, bad science, annoying characters, and derivative production values, but stunning special effects and non-stop excitement. Imagine that this movie appeals to millions, spawns a successful trilogy of sequels and becomes an iconic part of the memories of an entire generation. Imagine that, twenty-two years later, a new set of movies appears as the "prequel" to the originals. They have the same characteristics--plot holes, bad science, annoying characters, and derivative production values, but are guaranteed an audience, based on the success of the older movies. What young viewers were able to overlook in the original trilogy they have now grown out of, and demand better product, with a more adult approach and understanding. They want so badly for the new movies to be "good," but are disappointed by what is, actually, more of the same. It is not the prequels that are different, but rather the fans, who discover, through the prequels (and now through Episode VII) that you can't go home again. Like Luke, we have all grown up and understood the true nature of the Force.
Except the original Star Wars Trilogy is actually really important to film history: it created the first truly big blockbuster sensation, it created one of the biggest special effects studios in Hollywood: Industrial Lights & Magic, its characters have gone down in history as some of the most iconic in film ... The prequels weren't well received because they had flat characters, really bad acting (original Star Wars trilogy acting wasn't exactly Shakespeare, but remember, likable 3-Dimensional characters), special effects that have aged really poorly, and no real innovation to the film industry. They always had high expectations, but they weren't met in the slightest. Is (Original Trilogy) Star Wars a popcorn flick? Yes. Is it one of the best popcorn flicks? Yes, and its far too important to film history to forget its legacy. It may be worth mentioning that I find Return of the Jedi a lackluster experience, with teddy bears that exist only for toy-making purposes, weird plot twists like Leia being Luke's sister, an ending in which none of our main characters lose anything (well Luke loses his father ... but honestly, Han should have died a hero's death, we had to wait for Force Awakens for that).
The answer to your question about fandom and why is "People are inherently creative." Life wants to create more life, art, though the hands and minds and speech of people, wants to create more art. It's both a critique and strong iron bars across the slouching walls of a large and loved work. For some reason in our western culture there's a sad stripe of doubt that ostensibly separates art, the work its self, and the person watching, viewing, or participating in that organized slice of time and space that is a work. There's no line dividing the art and the viewer in that reJenging of a spotty bit of crafted entertainment.
I have sort of a spinoff theory of the Darth Jar Jar theory that he's actually a grey force user, someone who is incredibly powerful, but is neither Jedi nor Sith, and is ultimately just consolidating power so that he can stay safe when the empire rises, as he so correctly predicted. He's not an ally to Palpatine in that way, he just wants to survive without having to go all Yoda with it.
One redemptive theory for The Matrix is that Morpheus is wrong for the purpose of the Matrix. It's not an electrical power source (as that makes no sense), but rather all the minds hooked up to the Matrix act as the processors for the AIs themselves.
+Joshua Hillerup So far as I'm aware, that's not just a theory. The Wachowski's said that was their initial pitch, but network execs thought it was 'too out there' for audiences to understand, so it was changed. Correct me if I'm wrong.
My theory was that the Zion and the whole "real world" was just another layer of the Matrix.Otherwise Neo had wi-fi or AI is magic. The entire third movie is the consequence of the wrong decision in the architects office.
this theory holds up pretty well overall. speaking of trying to save the prequels, I have heard some people claim and/or interrupt ankain's story of pointing out why depending a "chosen one" is a terrible idea
I'm of the opinion that the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy was never that bad. So, when I first heard the theory that Jar Jar Binks is a Sith, I immediately took to it. It proves that the Prequel Trilogy isn't that bad and is in fact secretly awesome. I'm particularly taken by the argument that in the scene when Jar Jar jumps off the balcony with Qui Gon and Obi Wan where he kind of stumbles but still lands facing the right direction could only be if Jar Jar had back flipped through the air like we've seen Jedi do on occasion. But that could just be bad editing you say? Not so. If you look closely, you see not one, but two battle droids who seem to be following Jar Jar's trajectory through the air, and it looks like they're observing him do a back flip! You don't put that much effort into a mistake. I was almost completely certain that Supreme Leader Snoke was actually Jar Jar up until I saw The Force Awakens. I was actually a little upset because of it. My headcanon at the moment is that Jar Jar is the founder of the Inquisitors seen on Star Wars: Rebels. I really like the idea of the Jar Jar is a Sith theory kind of straddling the boundary between fan theory and fan fiction. In the My Little Pony fandom, I have observed some people use fanfiction as the means to "correct" certain issues they may have had with particular episodes and what not. As of yet, I haven't really observed anything on the level of the Jar Jar is a Sith theory.
I shouldn't encourage this, but... When you showed Jar Jar meeting Quay, quai..Liam Neeson, I was struck with similarity to when Luke meets Yoda in "Empire'. Is acting the simple creature to be underestimated a jedi tactic both are employing?
I think one of the major reasons people put so much effort into trying to enjoy the prequel trilogy is because, buried under all the flaws, there are some very good moments. Mostly in the third film or in some of the casting choices but they are there. There's a feeling that if someone or something had intervened and worked on the writing and direction that these might have been as amazing as the original trilogy. Another reason might be because they are canon movies, that can't really be ignored if you want to talk Star Wars as a fan. Unlike the EU, when it was canon, the prequel trilogy are too big and uncomplicated to be ignored or for people to pick and choose from. If you're going to have those films considered canon no matter what you do, you might as well find a headcanon or fan theory that allows you to ignore or overlook the many flaws and enjoy the films.
The fact that there's never that "reveal" moment that Mike mentions is a dead give-away that Lucas never intended him to be a Sith in disguise at all. It would have been jaw-dropping and amazing if in episode II or III Jar Jar IS revealed to be an evil trickster; but even if the writer's intended all of it, they dropped the ball on THE most important moment of that plot twist. That lack of a reveal, intentional or otherwise, left it as nothing more than a "meh, I don't really see it," hypothesis. And if they wanted it to be this amazingly deep and difficult to uncover secret that the fans had to find on their own, they didn't leave ENOUGH evidence in my opinion. I know some theorists think the clues are undeniable, but I've had most/all of them explained to me. They're convincing as an accidental/coincidental thing without any authorial intent, like "Oh look how they accidentally made Jar Jar look like a bad guy!" But they're not at all convincing as a theory that the writers secretly, deliberately sneaked in. I feel like this Jar Jar theory falls under the Pokemon war theory. The fact that it exists suggests more about what the fans want from the series than it does about the argument for the theory itself. I agree that it basically suggests people are itching to find some complex way to rescue the worst parts of the prequels, or twist them into something more tolerable. That said, it's still an interesting theory and I think there's value in discussing it :)
+MagicTurtle643 One of the key points of the theory is that Jar Jar's roll was changed between the release of Episode 1 and the filming of Episode 2. According to the theory Gorge was planning to do a longer version of the misdirection done with Yoda, stretching it from a few minutes to the whole movie. This backfired as he was seen as a very annoying Scrappy Doo type character and fans latched onto him as the embodiment of everything wrong with the movie. As damage control the scripts were retconed to downplay him and add a new villain in an attempt to save the rest of the trilogy. The planned reveal was removed. Still unless Gorge comes out and says that this was what he had planned 'Darth Jar Jar' will remain nothing more than a fan theory.
+NobodyImportant Yeah, I did see that part in the video, which would explain it. I still don't think the evidence in Episode I is nearly enough to make me believe it though :P
+MagicTurtle643 Do agree with you there. It he was intended to be a hidden antagonist then I feel that fact was hidden a bit to well for the audience to buy it. Though sure in episode 2 they might have added more hits about it and make the reveal more smooth.
Another redemptive fan theory is the Mass Effect Indoctrination Theory which is pretty weak in my opinion, but I perfectly understand why people choose to believe it. It is more consistent with previous canon than the actual ending.
+David Del Pozo Filíu I still aggressively disagree with the IT. The finale being rushed and altered at the last minute was a terrible mistake but I think people's real problem was that no matter what they didn't get a total win
+biohazard724 There probably people to whom that is an issue. To me and most of my friends though, the problem with the ending is much simpler. It just doesn't make any sense, at all. The whole stupid synthetics vs. organics thing which ruins the whole motivation of the Reapers.
+ThingsStuffington That and all the endings were basically the same, and it ended badly for everyone in the galaxy no matter what. You spend all this time bringing everyone in the galaxy together and at the end *SPOILER* all the relays explode, killing most and effectively cutting everyone off from each other, effectively making everything you did and every choice you made until then pointless. The option of a total win should have been in there, but also a total loss or somewhere in between should have also been present (like the green ending).
While I do not remember the full theory, I remember the backlash of the ending. It's a similar situation in comparison to this theory. It try's to fix a well loved game from its terrible ending. Using the lore in another comparison to jar jar. If any one is interested just look up mass effect 3 ending and the theory for your self.
I would love an episode about the change to han solo based on him either shooting first or not with greedo. That one single scene literally changes his entire character from dirty smuggler who redeems himself in the end to an always noble has-been that's really a good guy when you get to know him. The impact a single scene makes in the entire development of a character is a significant phenomena in film and I think talking about that would just be swell
I've never been the biggest Star Wars fan, but I have two friends who are the BIGGEST fans I've ever dealt with. I once listened to a friend's reasoning as to why the Attack of the Clones literally ruins the original trilogy, for 2 hours. I personally love the Darth Binks theory for the single reason that it REALLY pisses off my friends. They hate it, they hate it with such a passion that if it's brought up around them, there is visible disgust on their face. Honestly, the theory would redeem the Jar Jar Binks character, and would have actually made for a better episode II. Because honestly, killing off Darth Maul was a bad idea, he was the only character in the prequels that had any potential as a villain. (I know that he's still alive if you watch the clone wars cartoons). So, when they brought in Dooku, he was another villain that lasted one movie, being killed off in the beginning of episode III with what seems like no effort at all. If Binks was a sith, it would have added this arc throughout the prequels, where we would be rooting for Anakin to defeat him, to take out a friend, sinking into the dark side. I just don't see this being part of the original plan though, I don't trust Lucas to have been thinking that far ahead by himself. In the OT he was actually helped by other writers, co-directors, and so on. He never PERSONALLY made the movies. He always had help. The reason the prequels weren't good, is because he was surrounded by a bunch of "yes men." He was never challenged, so everything made it in. Funny thing though, my girlfriend hates C-3PO with just as much passion as others have hated Jar Jar. We seem to forget that we had just as many ridiculous characters in the OT that were annoying as well. I just have to say that Jar Jar isn't the character that needs redeeming, it's the entire prequel trilogy. It's all poorly written, and poorly executed.
+Darth Savage I feel the exact same way and I think that's the most interesting thing about the whole Darth Jar Jar phenomenon. One can cerebrially know an inconvenient truth about a beloved fictional universe, but it sits in such stark contrast to how we feel about the rest of it that we opt to make post-hoc adaptions so that it's all consistent. But not only do we make the adaptions, but we can let the "improved" narrative occupy our mind OVER THE ORIGINAL until pressed otherwise. It's like there's Star Wars as it exists in the world but then there's our own personal Star Wars. When I think about it, I know that Jar Jar is a fumbling, bumbling, mistake-- but the immediate affect I feel towards the franchise is that hich would have been generated on a nearby philosophical world where Jar Jar was intended to be a sith lord. So I choose to feel one way for the sake of coherence even though that feeling is based upon a known falsehood. The brain is trippy, man.
Man... Big props on your writing... I mean. You've been doing it all along, but the alliteration in "bile for binks began to bubble" just blew me away. Bravo.
As I'm not a hater of the trilogy (well, except the Mario Bros lava fight), Jar Jar being a villain is the only thing that ever made sense to me. Lucas said that Jar Jar was meant to be the most important character in the story, so I watched him with that in mind. When the fan theory came around, it was a, "What took you so long?" Hey, it's better than a gas leak erasing a whole season of Community.
+Chris Abbey According to the novelization of The Phantom Menace, this was because Qui-Gon recognized Jar Jar as a Karmic Fool (Something young Obi-Wan was unable to understand) Essentially that the Force was using Jar Jar as a tool for its own purposes and Qui-Gon was following it. I think that made sense (And was apparently approved, and maybe intended, by Lucas) but the film failed to convey that aspect of both Qui-Gon and Jar Jar successfully.
Geahk Burchill I didn't know that about the novelization. Was it enough to throw out the idea of him being a Sith Lord, and just a way for him to be a different danger? IOW, was he a dice throw (agent of chaos), or did he have a particular role that was teased?
Chris Abbey Jar Jar was a tool of the Force with little or no understanding on his own. It was through Jar Jar's actions that Qui-Gon was able to "see the invisible hand" behind events. It was a really interesting take and could have really worked on film (had it been done well) But, to answer your question, yes, it made it highly unlikely Jar Jar could be a Sith. Jar Jar is more like the ball in a pin-ball machine and Qui-Gon was in the role of trying to predict the score. If I had to guess, Lucas probably planned to have the ultimate destination of the story be 'a PERFECT balance' of the force. The stagnant light side must fall in the prequels but then the dark side stagnates in the original trilogy so _it_ must fall. That would leave eps. 7,8 & 9 to finally achieve harmony between the two sides. In that sense, Jar Jar was a tool of the force that was intended to help with the fall of the light side (In effort to find balance) but the Empire was then an over-correction. So, while not a _SITH_ Jar Jar was working to bring down the Republic. Just not consciously.
Not all Star Wars fans hate the prequels I my self am a huge Star Wars fan and I LOVE the prequels and that number is growing because I think the people who grew up with the prequels like me are adults now and are starting to voice there opinions more. I personally don't mind jar jar my self he was made to appeal to the kids and I just go with it.
Jar Jar was almost certainly intended to be a Sith master, but unfortunately Lucas waited too long for the reveal. Had he at least given Jar-JAr an opportunity to give some sort of a nod or wink to Palpatine or done something only the audience could see to at least plant the seed of distrust in the first film it would have drastically changed the impression of the movie. People may have even forgotten to be quite as upset about miticlorians with such a twist from clumsy hateful garbage Jar-Jar to evil manipulating unexpected Jar-Jar.
This is what I believe to be the case as well. Although I never had a problem with Jar jar, for the people who did this may have made all of the difference. Unfortunately, it would also have lessened the reveal I think Lucas wanted to have but it turns out he miscalculated on some things.
When I first heard about the "Darth Jar Jar" theory, I thought it was a joke, like the classic "The Original Trilogy is actually about dying in front of Luke" theory, but about halfway through reading it I had a horrid moment where it not only seemed plausible, but might actually be true. Personally, I have no interest in "saving" the prequels. In fact, most of my resistance to this theory is because I don't want to save them, but the evidence supporting Darth Jar Jar is just way too compelling for me to ignore, and as much as I still hate to admit this...I've searched my feelings. I know it to be true. Seriously though, go look up the "Dying in front of Luke" theory. It is hi-larious.
As a person who was just a simple kid when Jar Jar Binks was shown I found him quite enjoyable. All of the gags and speaches were funny to me. His character was something that did classic slap stick humor (well poorly) in Star Wars. In the original the humor was more adult and less apparent to my younger self, but with Jar Jar I got most of the jokes. Jar Jar is he Olaf of Star Wars that meaning he serves a purpose thought not to well. I would welcome a Dark Jar Jar Binks in the story line. Keep up the great work.
There's another fascinating edge case surrounding the third Pirates of the Caribbean film, "At World's End." The ultimate status of a lead character's fate was demoted to the realm of "fan theory" after the exclusion of a single plot element. A key moment of exposition that explained how a certain piece of the universe's mythology was edited out of the final cut. The rest of the story, of course, was constructed in light of this element, so the reflections of it can still be seen in the final film, and the "rule" itself can be inferred with some interpretive gymnastics. Not having it spelled out explicitly, however, left anyone who actually did the work of inferring it feeling a lot closer to fan theorist than anything else. For those curious about the specifics of this plot element: Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) stabs the heart of Davy Jones and is charged with replacing his cursed position as Captain of the Flying Dutchman, doomed to ferry souls lost at sea to the other side. As the films spell out, this position is permitted to come ashore once every ten years, "to be with she who loves him." The deleted sequences explained that, if after the first ten years his love was true to him, the curse would be broken. If not, he would be doomed to an eternity of servitude. As I said, the remnants of this decision can be seen throughout the films, often in the broad motivations of the effected characters, but most particularly in an exchange between Jack Sparrow and Davy Jones in their climactic duel. Jack offers to stab the heart, gain immortality, and in his mind, free Jones. "I can set you free, mate." Jones' response to this is telling: "My freedom was forfeit long ago." No other previously described workings of the curse would make sense in the context of this line unless it was as described in the the deleted scene. This also goes a long way to justifying the level of hatred in Jones' voice when he finally faces his lost love again. "You weren't there," he spat with a particularly stung inflection. The reason this has such large ramifications for the Will Turner character is in the reading of the film's post-credits sequence. Without this information, it seems a bittersweet once-every-ten-years meeting between lovers. WITH this information, it would appear that Elizabeth, their child in hand, had indeed been true to Will, and this scene actually represents the breaking of his curse.
I'll only (try to) answer the first question. Jar Jar MIGHT have been intended as a sith master / collaborator, as he is seen in Episode I. The two slightly compelling reasons for this is the aformentioned "drunken fighting style" + luck that he demonstrates throughout the film, and (wich you left out of this video) his apparent ability to mimic, cast, or in the the least, influence voice and conversaion. (He is often seen in the background, somewhat mumbling in a way that can or should be seen as similarly to what the main characters of the scene are saying.) Third reason: The Mule. The fan theory of "darth jar jar" bears striking resemblance to the story of 'the Mule', in Asimov's Foundation-series. As we know, Lucas has usually been more about presentating ideas, than generating ideas himself. Alot is borrowd, be it from Dune or Star Trek. And if there is one point of influence of Asimov in the prequel-trilogy, it's the planet of Coruscant, wich readers of Asimov would recognise as a rip-off Trantor. To my knowledge, Asimov was first out with a description of this sort of "goverment city-planet", and I find it unlikely that Lucas where'nt intending his Coruscant to be nothing but a copy of that. It's not too unlikely to think that Lucas might have wanted to lend another crucial element of the Fountaion-series, a certain twist, where, and I don't wanna spoil anything for whomever hasn't read Foundation (of wich you should), a character thought to be useless is actually the man behind the plan. (My best answer to the other questions is that I love to talk about Isaac Asimov) Pardon my bad english, yours truly, ,J.
Oh, and sorry for making a hell of a lot of claims wich I don't provide examples of. I try to keep it short (I say 'try'), and listing examples of everything would take for ever. So I guess I'll take it on good faith on you guys that you know what I'm talking about. much love
Honestly, even when watching Jar Jar for the first time... I kept thinking "the force is strong with this one!" I mean, it is amazing how jar jar always seems to 'luck out' to the point where I believe it cannot be luck. Indeed! he must be a super skilled force user! I also really liked him as a character. (: I'm not ashamed to say it. d: Anyway. Personally, I always thought he was a sort of "natural force user." Kind of like a super talented genius next door that no one knows about. I don't think he was even aware of his power. Although I never knew he fell to the dark side. My guess is, he didn't even know the extent of his true power. He could have made a great jedi, but the dark side unlocked his true abilities first. And the rest, they say, is history. d:
A huge chunk of Harry Potter fandom does this kind of redemptive headcanon-building too (and I argue always has) - they notice huge holes in the narrative, especially when compared to modern-day concepts of intersectionality, and try to build ways to make the HP world more representative and inclusive. This gets into very academic territory - a bunch of us interested in international Potterverse culture, for instance, came up with this elaborate set of stories and headcanons around colonialism and magic in the Potterverse, including some theories around wands being a tool of colonialism and how indigenous Asian and African magical cultures would not have needed wands to perform magic (and we got vindicated when JK Rowling said as much in a recent Pottermore update!).
+Creatrix Tiara I've forced myself to stay away from reading too much on this because I'm supposed to be doing school work atm - but what are your thoughts on the recent issues w/ the "Magic in N. America" Pottermore content about Native Americans? Read a couple of disappointed takes after it came out, am at that stage where I want to get all the perspectives
+Humanist+ my perspective is limited because I'm not NA myself, but it does seem like a well-meant gesture that didn't come off well. It might have worked better if JK Rowling didn't already use a culturally significant term ("skinwalker") and if she wasn't so glib about racism. I do remember when Fantastic Beasts was first announced that people were worried that there WON'T be any Indigenous representation.
So I've been watching Star Wars: The Clone Wars, and interestingly Jar Jar shows up in a couple ways that kinda suggest he's a force user. In S1E8: "Bombad Jedi," Jar Jar is mistaken for a jedi because of his outfit, but then goes on to tame a giant predatory swamp worm, and animal taming and control is something shown to be pretty impressive even for Jedi. It's not difficult for me to imagine that the writers were making a nod to Lucas' original intentions. In S2E3: "Supply Lines," Jar Jar has to distract a table full of dinner guests, and to do so he builds a delicate tower of plates and glasses, carrying and tossing plates with more precision than humanly possible. This is bumbling Jar Jar we're talking about, and he doesn't drop a single plate! It makes a lot more sense when you imagine he's a force user. Now, I personally don't like the sith lord theory, but I really love the idea that Jar Jar is both dumb and skilled in the force and inherently in combat. Just the idea that he has potential locked away in his clumsy head that only appears during his most adrenaline filled moments helps me think of him in a more respectful light.
+Nathan Ware While those are great points and I'm totally on board with Jar Jar force powers, I don't think people should respect a character more after they're revealed to have inherent power. It's like giving superman more respect than batman because he's stronger even though batman trains for his fighting skills and runs a company to sustain his cash flow.
+003dylan I feel as if the respect he is speaking of is only given due to the character in question having more depth than 'that one quirky character,' and perhaps not just because they have super powers. Respect for a character's...character, I suppose.
Tak-Tak Naark I feel that's like saying. "no one likes our comic relief, let's give him a huge gun! Character Design!" over exaggerating a bit but I feel like it's a lazy way to make a character matter instead of developing them into a respectable character, like if Jar Jar took time off of being doofy to face real conflict and grow from it.
The later seasons of the clone wars tv series give the prequels a bit more perspective that make them easier to watch. Still can't stand Jar Jar.. or should I say Darth Jar Jar?
The clone wars is basically canon fan fictionalized theorizing though. So's Rebels. And i mean absolutely no disrespect by that. If there's one universe that thrives by canonizing fan fiction, it's Star Wars. Even more than Star Trek.
***** The scarecrow was both, he would never stop stumbling everywhere and did dumb things like urge talking trees to throw apples at everyone. In the end, "annoyance" is subjective and it's the mind of the viewer of a movie that determines if something is annoying in it, not the writing of the script writer.
1) I think Jar-Jar was almost certainly originally intended to be a Sith Lord, but after his negative reception, the writers changed their minds. Therefore, he isn't a Sith Lord canonically, but would have been if The Phantom Menace didn't suck. 2) Another example of a redemptive fan theory is +FilmTheory's examination of the Architect's speech in the Matrix, and come to think of it, all of the fan theories made about the Matrix covered by +FilmTheory. They collectively redesign the universally hated ending to the adored movie's sequels, making it seem like a stroke of genius. 3) To answer this question, let's look at a broader question: why make fan theories in the first place? I think it shows a level of investment in a piece of media unrivaled by any other inspired piece of art, like a painting or even a fan fiction. It's a piece of creative literature made within the strict parameters of information given within the text or film. Fan theories are the mark of true fans, who have absorbed the story and seen deeper levels of it. As for Star Wars in particular, this explanation plays a factor, certainly, but something else here is at play: disappointment and, to an extent, grief. Die hard fans of Star Wars, who saw A New Hope when it first came out in theaters and religiously took in The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were ecstatic to hear that their favorite story was gaining some family members. It turns out those family members were babbling idiots. These die hards were so heartbroken that they refused to accept the quality of the movie at face value. So, they designed fan theories to find meaning in their loss. This is the denial stage of grief. Fans of Star Wars went in a mixed order of the five stages, ending in denial that culminated in acceptance: the acceptance of Darth Jar Jar.
My favorite bit of this fan theory is that it extends into aspects beyond the films themselves even re-interpreting Lucas's notorious "Jar Jar is the key to all this" line in the behind the scenes footage to have a far more expansive meaning.
I find the Darth Binks theory very compelling, though it's hard to say if I find it that way because I want it to or because it makes sense. But I would still classify this as a theory and not a fan-fiction because the author used content already in the movies to justify and back the theory, as opposed to recreating the entire trilogy based on the idea of darth binks
FROM MY POINT OF VIEW JAR JAR IS EVIL! Sorry, can never resist an excuse to use that hilariously awful quote. In all seriousness, I definitely don't think Lucas intended Jar Jar to be a Sith Lord. However, until he comes out and flat out says Jar Jar isn't one, I'd say there's a fair chance he's really a villain. Besides, it's not like this kind of thing has never happened in a series before. I won't go into specifics, but just in case, spoiler warning for the last case in the second Ace Attorney game: One character in the game acts like a total imbecile the entire time, even acting like he doesn't realize what's going in when he gets arrested at one point. However, when you finally discover his dark past and confront him about it, he's revealed to have been playing everyone for food the entire time, and he turns out to be the case's true villain.
I remember watching a video a few years back of a vlogger literally explaining how he would have done the prequels, essentially making obiwan the main character and anakin turning into vader as a backdrop part of the setting. It was really good and this was way before the Darth Binks theory became popular.
I first noticed Jar Jar's drunken fist style on my very first viewing of menace. Weeks later I was telling people online that he had to be connected to the force. Once I heard the theory of him being a Sith, I was fully on board. I have been filling plot holes in media much of my life, the good and the bad. Some of my best Fanfiction does exactly that.
One interesting fan theory that fixes M. Nights, Sign's: They're demons, not aliens. The water thing? The daughter blessed it(she was referenced as blessed in the movie). The demons first met resistance in the middle east? Holy sites. The demon's awkwardness? They were not faster than light travelers, but demon refuges. (Why the "aliens" had no weapons.) Inability to break through wooden doors? Traditional elements of demonology(remember vampires and wooden stakes). Not to mention the whole story revolves around a former priest, visions, and would add M. Night's signature twist.
Maybe Jar Jar is a metaphor for George Lucas as a creator. Alone they seem goofy, unfocused, but in collaboration of other people is an unstoppable juggernaut and a social infuanser for the world to recognize in movies or the dark side or both. but the true villain here, if true is cold feet. if you go left field with a villain stick with your guns and take on the world. i would rather be criticize by my best plan A then a hastily made plan B.
In my mind, the effort put into this is a testament to how beloved the star wars franchise is to people, and that if one is unable to overlook the negatives in the prequels, they need to reimagine them in order to get to the good parts. I also think that if this "theory"/"fan fiction" were canonized by inclusion in the new movies, it would better the franchise as a whole by fixing what many see as a blunder.
My favorite fan theory is that Miss Frizzle is a Time Lady and the Magic School Bus is a Tardis. It's a highly cohesive connection, and it takes something we all know and love and elevates it to a fandom.
I've been looking at and thinking about this theory for a while. After re watching the prequels I still find it hard to believe that he is a sith lord. However, the strongest proponent to the myth is George Lucas himself. When talking about the original trilogy, he mentioned using the heroes journey as the main framework which always involved meeting a strange creature in an isolated area who turns out to be much more important than they originally appear to be. This is Yoda to a T. Now, think of how he talked about the prequel and the idea that it was intended to be a foil, a complete mirror to the originals. We watch the journey of the villain. We see the fall of a character, and instead of having our strange creature be the ultimate good whom we love, he is the ultimate evil whom we despise.
I want JJ Abrams to insert Jar Jar's shadow being cast over a major scene in one of the movies to come, just to give the subscribers to this theory a sense of pieces being put together. Just one shadow in a one second clip can make the movies, especially the prequels, so much better and more deep.
One fan theory that was pretty prominent was the "Ghost survived the flames" in Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2. People just did not want to let go of such an interesting character like Ghost. I remember claims of cut out dialogue stating that they wore fire proof gear in that final mission, people were pretty dedicated to that theory.
I think the most successful redemptive fan theory within this decade (though this is my opinion, so whatevs) is the Coulson Lives fan theory. So many people fell in love with this understated character that when he was killed off in Avengers, nearly everyone immediately insisted that he couldn't be dead, though part of that is helped along by Fury's play with the "bloodied" cards. So many people within the Marvel Movie fandom were so insistent about Coulson's survival that a whole TV show is devoted to him and his exploits with his crew. He's even made it into comic book canon! If this is not the most successful, then it is definitely one of the loudest fan theories to be acknowledged by the canon creators.
I’m not sure if this is because of my age but I really enjoyed Jar Jar in the film, he added some comic relief and his gags were just hilariously in a very serious world.
as a 10 year old, I enjoyed his comic relief honestly. as an adult, I find the sith rewrite theory to be a fun way to reframe the character to get more entertainment out of the same work. I can now watch either as a nostalgic viewer or as an analytical story critic.
I don't believe this theory for a second, but the full theory is so well-argued and sincerely-worded it comes across as funny and endlessly entertaining for me
I wonder how this relates to things like the debate over whether Snape was a hero or a villain. The general consensus in this fan theory seems to be that it comes from a place of wanting to justify/apologize for Jar Jar, as though he can't stand on his own merits as a character. But what if it comes from a place of loving Jar Jar, and is really a way of framing him in a way that allows others to love him too?
A redemptive fan theory for the Matrix sequels is that Neo isn't actually The One. Its actually Smith It makes Reloaded and Revolutions worth another look.
1. No. 2. The Battlestar Galactica Cylonism is an STD. It explains why seemingly human characters turn out to be cylons even near the very end, because they became cylons after catching a disease which turned them into cylons because every character who was revealed as a cylon had sex with another cylon character. Also the fan theory that Walter White did do everything in the ending, but didn't die as we see a paramedic checking his pulse at the very end. Meaning he survived and would actually face justice for his crimes. Thanks to MatPat for that one. 3. Because the original trilogy was such a cultural event, we tried to recapture that magic after Lucas spent three films focused mostly on world building than story development.
I wonder if there might be a "redemptive fan theory" around Don Quixote. From conversations I've had with people about the book, there seem to be two camps: one camp who thinks that the way Don Quixote is presented is exactly how he should be interpreted, and another camp that seems to think that no, there's actually a game being played with the reader and he is not actually insane at all, but acting out insanity for various reasons (to do what he wants to in his old age, teach friends the value of belief in oneself and their ideas, etc.). The reason I might call the latter a "redemptive fan theory" is that it can be seen as 'fixing' the ending. The first camp would see a sad, crazy man finally realizing the error of his ways, effectively rendering Quixote a tragic, foolish character. But the latter camp, not accepting the portrayal of Quixote at face value, can now read the ending as that of a clever teacher with nothing left to teach. I also begin to wonder what the differences between a redemptive fan theory and something that's simply a different interpretation are.
What's amazing to me is the uniquely creative process behind fan-theories. They have to use only what already exists (i.e. the actual canon), and yet completely twist its meaning into a new form that in no way contradicts anything canonical. I never would have conceived of the idea of Jar Jar as a Sith Lord. But after hearing this theory, I rewatched Episodes I, II, & III, and it makes perfect sense! There was never a moment where I thought, "No, that theory doesn't hold up in this scene." I think, whether or not you agree that Jar Jar being Sith is 'canonical', having conceived of that idea is itself a wonderful creative feat that is worthy of our praise.
Actually I really liked Noelle Stevenson's theories on Jango Fett and Zam Wesell, I don't even like the prequels but I LOVED where she went with it - made that entire unsatisfying assassin-for-hire storyline interesting, AND it connects with the orig-trig!
I love the idea of Dart Jar Jar, he could have shed the annoying accent when he was revealed to Mace Windo who fought him rather than the emperor, while at the same time Sidious was fighting Yoda and Anakin and Obi-Wan were on Mustafaar.
Binks as Gray Jedi (or "many colors of the force") blowing up both the Jedi Counsel and the Sith is more interesting. Imagine: the next movie opens, and Luke has been training with Binks to understand why both the Sith AND the Jedi (as Luke was recreating them) were problematic and doomed to cause problems.
in an earlier draft, Jar Jar was actually a mercenary who betrayed Qui Gon in the 3rd act of the film. he was then rewritten as the character he is after George Lucas felt he needed some way to appeal to kids
The greatest source of true fan-redemptive theorizing is 'Memory Alpha' the Star Trek wiki - it's amazing, there fans have done the work that the decades of different writing staffs and creative leads couldn't, meticulously linking and repairing thousands of scraps of off-hand comments and technical information into a cohesive canon, all within what is pre-established canon and possible within the set limits of the setting. I wish I had a specific example, but seriously it's amazing, there have been so many times where the simplest interpretation of some facet of a single episode has drawn a straight line between dialogue written decades apart and it WORKS.
... I was a huge Topher Grace fan for a long time (the I actually really like In Good Company kind of fan) and I never knew about the Topher Grace cut of Star Wars. You have improved my day 1 million fold.
I recently came across the idea that within the Star Trek universe we humans are kind of the Jar Jar Binks of the universe. And that's why only our ship (or rather the federation's ships build and mostly manned by humans) face all the malfunctions we see in the various series. No other species faces these challenges. I really enjoyed that thought.
Qui-gon Jinn and Darth Maul were using Force Telepathy to communicate Qui's death in Duel of Fates scene, as Qui remained loyal to Dooku, who in turn conspired with Palpatine. Qui knew Force Ghost and was unafraid of death, but needed to choreograph a believable death between he and Maul to convince the Jedi Council to take in Anikin as a Padawan to Kenobi, thus initiating the events of episode 2 and onward.
+Adam Hoffman I feel sorry for Hayden. Dude has a good presence about him, good with action, an expressive fae... he just had a bad script and poor direction. Guy CAN act.... he was just dealt a bad hand.
A fan theory I heard recently I really liked was that the aliens in signs were actually demons, and that Bo's character blessed the water around the house making it holy water which is why the alien was hurt by it, doesn't explain everything but is more coherent with the religious bent/theme of the movie
It seems plausible. I tweeted Lucas asking this very question, but he has yet to respond. I don't have a fan theory to contribute, but more of an idea for a fan fiction, or at least a way these movies could have been better. Since the orig-trig drew heavily on popular genres (westerns, samurai, greek tragedies, etc) I would have loved it if the prequel trilogy had drawn on different genres that would have made sense to the story points. The romance between Padme and Anakin would have been more plausible if he had been the rugged or tall, dark and handsome archetype of romance novels. Almost every moment of their interaction had led me to believe they were never going to hook up. Him whining to her about Obi-wan's treatment of him should have friend zoned him for the rest of the trilogy. If there had been a romance the audience could believe, it would have made Anakin's fall much more significant. I'd like to say there was a bit of a buddy cop thing going on, but looking at the best films in that genre, you can tell why the Obi-wan/Qui-gon, Anakin/Obi-wan relationship didn't have the same impact. Most duos of this type are completely mismatched in a way so that at some point, it becomes clear that they really work together quite well, because of their differences. If this was a genre Lucas was trying to draw from, he did so poorly. If not, then he could have made some of these relationships function in a more satisfying way. Darth Maul would have been much more bad-ass if they had treated him like a slasher villain. (Watch the movie "Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon" (2006) if you haven't yet, it does a great job of exploring the elements of a slasher film.) How cool would it have been to see him throughout the movie stalking and killing Jedi? Instead, we just get to see him pop up for a moment, and then again to get cut in half and tossed away.
Taxi Driver, I think, is the oldest example of this in mainstream movies. The ending can be interpreted as literal, but much like Breaking Bad, many fans prefer to imagine the thematic conclusion is only literal to the protagonist, who can be assumed to have met an nonpoetic but realistic end by the logic of the scene.
I think the reason people want so badly for the prequels to be good is because of how important Star Wars is to our culture. It's also the reason people were so ridiculously critical of The Force Awakens, even though it wasn't much worse than the originals. When Phantom Menace came out, everyone denied that it was terrible. But we can all pretty much agree that it's a disappointment of a movie. By fixing Jar Jar, it somehow makes the sting of the prequels a little less hurtful.
My favorite piece of evidence for the Darth Jar Jar theory is that George Lucas was HEAVILY inspired by many sci-fi and fantasy novels written throughout the decades, and there is one character in the Xanth series who's name is Bink, and who is also a clumsy crazy lucky guy, but it turns out that his luck is actually the power of his magic working in mysterious ways. Now replace magic with the force and Jar Jar BINKS with Bink, and the similarities are uncanny.
+Gnoggin Sounds real flimsy in comment-form, Gnoggs. Would be real doubtful if I hadn't already watched your awesome video on the topic. Which, by the way, is the best video on this theory I've seen anywhere thus far.
Your video was the first I saw, I still think it is a masterpiece of a theory video. I showed it to my cousins and they were fully convinced, as was I.
It’s so funny looking back how many comments here were ripped off the original reddit thread lmao.
Also: Jar Jar and Palpatine are both from Naboo, which is basically the equivalent of next-door neighbors in Star Wars
In the interview with Jar Jar's voice actor he does a serious, menacing line with the Jar Jar voice that is actually bone chilling.
Have you seen the clips of Jar Jar where he is mouthing the words that the other characters are saying as if he is making them say what they say?
+Ken Ives Yeah. The one on Tatooine with Amidala is especially intriguing.
The Darth Binks theory is one of my single favorite fan theories of all time, simply because it changes one of the most hated characters in Star Wars into one of the most intriguing, if you choose to believe it.
I kind of wish Idea channel had shown more of the supporting evidence, like the scene where Obi-wan, Qui-gon, and Jar Jar are in the submersible: the ship is obviously in trouble from a large fish when suddenly an even larger fish swoops in, devours it, and leaves, paying the ship no mind at all. If you watch closely, Jar Jar appears to utterly blank out just before the much larger fish comes rushing in to save the day. It's posited that Jar Jar actually mind-jacked that fish into saving them, and I think they're onto something.
Another thing: isn't it odd how cynical and bitter Obi-wan sounds when he says, "I don't believe there's such thing as 'luck'"? Considering his experiences with Jar Jar in the prequel trilogies, one would think he would absolutely believe in luck; unless he had a specific reason not to, such as the knowledge that they had all been played from the start.
Chris V have you seen the episodes of TCW with Jar Jar and Mace? Those make it unlikely that he's a dark sider. But still possibly force user.
Ya but I a lot of George Lucas's original plans were scrapped according to the theory. I think George Lucas may have changed a lot of things.
Its also funny how there are hints all throughout TCW. One in particular talks about an ancient Gungan art using mind control yada yada. I need to find that episode.
Another episode involving Jar Jar impersonating a jedi wearing a robe and its funny he mentioned the underwater scene in TPM because there is a scene in that episode where Jar Jar somehow "tames" a giant sea monster, coincidently.. ifs thats not a little nudge from George Lucas, I don't know what is.
If George Lucas comes clean and this theory turns out to have absolutely no creedence whatsoever I would be shocked.
I've always enjoyed the prequels & Jar Jar is my 2nd favorite star wars character... Not even joking.
...
Glad someone said it
Though I can't say I love the prequels, Jar Jar is not a reason I dislike them
+LiEF Green I liked him only because he was OP in the lego games...
...
... Credit to theory?
+Mike the Media Dragon I never liked him, but i've never had an outright problem with him. I feel like Jar Jar was just the scapegoat for a multitude of problems the prequels had including bad pacing, problematic plot, breaking of original trilogy lore, bad directing (and subsequent bad acting) and weak relevance to the universe as a whole (at least for Phantom).
I am both pleasantly surprised, & a tiny bit disappointed at the lack of vitriol here guys
I believe that Lucas made Jar jar ' s original purpose to be sith, but with the backlash jar jar has brought on, driving Lucas to do the rewriting that he admits to doing DURING the filming of the second episode. All the faults of the prequles coming from over demanding and loud fans who cried hard enough about eating green beans to change the dinner menu into week old refrigerated hot dogs.
What's his midichlorian count?
acoupleofhundredofthem
+Christian Neihart OVER 9000!!!!!!
+DarkPrject You are a monster, I approve.
+DarkPrject
that´s impossible, this midichlorian-meter must be broken!
+Christian Neihart
Tshi.
him saying "meesa jar jar binks" at the beginning of the video was one of the cutest things ive ever seen
George Lucas openly said in interviews that the final product of the prequels differed from his original vision. That he changed plot threads in response to the backlash to the first film.
This could be a real impetus to try to decipher what his intent with the characters was. or maybe just the fact that so many fans invested their time and money into seeing all three in the cinema, despite the fact that they were repeatedly disappointed - I know I was.
Mike uses hand gestures numerous times throughout his videos. Therefore, Mike Rugnetta is a force master.
To me the thing that makes the Jar Jar sith theory so compelling is that it's so absurdly well supported. I do believe it, and I think the most important aspect in my experience of it is the citation of quotes from both Lucas and the twitter feed of the actor who played Jar Jar that can be read as alluding to this interpretation, and its subsequent revision. The Jar Jar sith theory feels like a real, substantial "could-have-been," were it not for the failure of courage on the part of the man in charge. It makes the story better, sure, but it also makes the history of the trilogy better. It's less dissonant to think "Lucas, who put together Star Wars, could have done it again but caved" than "Lucas, who put together Star Wars, also made these other terrible movies because he's basically got nothing in him that can still write."
Lucas did admit he made Last Minuite changes to ep. 2 and 3 based on fan reaction to ep. 1, seeing that Jar Jar is one of the most hated characters in ep.1 it's very likely those changes had to do with Jar Jar. So it's almost confirmed that Jar Jar was meant to play a bigger role in the prequels, but the better question is he going to play a big role in the new Trilogy
+Ryan Hau I doubt he was meant to be a secret antagonist however. If he was then George did really mess up not continuing that. I think that Jar Jar got less of a roll partly because he was not so important for the overall story.
+Cythil Keep in mind that the Prequels overall were a mess up, even after they downplayed Jar Jar's role in the rest of that Trilogy. Another complaint for the prequals in that it seem like they are just making it up as they go along and hardly going by any ideas Lucas had when the Original Trilogy was being made, tho as I pointed out above Lucas did kinda admit that with atleast 2 movies. The main problem with the prequels is that during story development, Lucas surrounds himself with nothing but Yes Men, as in people who don't have the balls to tell him when he have a bad idea, tho if the Darth Jar Jar theory in correct, then it shows that Ironically Lucas was a Yes Man himself.
Ryan Hau
Yeah that would be a great irony. I think that a big part of what made the original star wars so great was that he had to rework his vision and was not surrounded by Yes Men.
+Cythil After all, why would you remove a hated character from the villain spot? Makes no sense.
The thing is, people only didn't like the character they thought Jar Jar was. If they discovered he was not actually an idiotic character, they would have understood his purpose. So why would Lucas change that? That would be removing any redemption the character could/would have had.
This is my favorite theory in recent years for anything. It would have made the prequels absolutely amazing if he was revealed later on once things can't stop.
The prequels were great it's just you dumb fanboys buying into the nostalgia propaganda.
Star Wars is written from mythical story telling. Lucas is a fan of all that. Jar Jar is based on the character Bink from Xanth. A character who was banished from his home because of "magical abilities" who uses magic to shield himself. Also based on the Mule, from a story of Foundation and Empire. The character was a bumbling idiot who actually secretly acted stupid to work his way to rule the Galaxy
Picturing Binks as the Mule makes so much sense!!!!
Just recently introduced to Asimov but im addicted already :D.
Redemptive fan theory - The Last Airbender was performed by the Ember Island Players
Imagine a movie with plot holes, bad science, annoying characters, and derivative production values, but stunning special effects and non-stop excitement. Imagine that this movie appeals to millions, spawns a successful trilogy of sequels and becomes an iconic part of the memories of an entire generation. Imagine that, twenty-two years later, a new set of movies appears as the "prequel" to the originals. They have the same characteristics--plot holes, bad science, annoying characters, and derivative production values, but are guaranteed an audience, based on the success of the older movies. What young viewers were able to overlook in the original trilogy they have now grown out of, and demand better product, with a more adult approach and understanding. They want so badly for the new movies to be "good," but are disappointed by what is, actually, more of the same. It is not the prequels that are different, but rather the fans, who discover, through the prequels (and now through Episode VII) that you can't go home again. Like Luke, we have all grown up and understood the true nature of the Force.
Except the original Star Wars Trilogy is actually really important to film history: it created the first truly big blockbuster sensation, it created one of the biggest special effects studios in Hollywood: Industrial Lights & Magic, its characters have gone down in history as some of the most iconic in film ...
The prequels weren't well received because they had flat characters, really bad acting (original Star Wars trilogy acting wasn't exactly Shakespeare, but remember, likable 3-Dimensional characters), special effects that have aged really poorly, and no real innovation to the film industry. They always had high expectations, but they weren't met in the slightest.
Is (Original Trilogy) Star Wars a popcorn flick? Yes. Is it one of the best popcorn flicks? Yes, and its far too important to film history to forget its legacy.
It may be worth mentioning that I find Return of the Jedi a lackluster experience, with teddy bears that exist only for toy-making purposes, weird plot twists like Leia being Luke's sister, an ending in which none of our main characters lose anything (well Luke loses his father ... but honestly, Han should have died a hero's death, we had to wait for Force Awakens for that).
The answer to your question about fandom and why is "People are inherently creative." Life wants to create more life, art, though the hands and minds and speech of people, wants to create more art. It's both a critique and strong iron bars across the slouching walls of a large and loved work. For some reason in our western culture there's a sad stripe of doubt that ostensibly separates art, the work its self, and the person watching, viewing, or participating in that organized slice of time and space that is a work. There's no line dividing the art and the viewer in that reJenging of a spotty bit of crafted entertainment.
I have sort of a spinoff theory of the Darth Jar Jar theory that he's actually a grey force user, someone who is incredibly powerful, but is neither Jedi nor Sith, and is ultimately just consolidating power so that he can stay safe when the empire rises, as he so correctly predicted. He's not an ally to Palpatine in that way, he just wants to survive without having to go all Yoda with it.
One redemptive theory for The Matrix is that Morpheus is wrong for the purpose of the Matrix. It's not an electrical power source (as that makes no sense), but rather all the minds hooked up to the Matrix act as the processors for the AIs themselves.
+Joshua Hillerup So far as I'm aware, that's not just a theory. The Wachowski's said that was their initial pitch, but network execs thought it was 'too out there' for audiences to understand, so it was changed. Correct me if I'm wrong.
+Matt F You are totally correct!
My theory was that the Zion and the whole "real world" was just another layer of the Matrix.Otherwise Neo had wi-fi or AI is magic. The entire third movie is the consequence of the wrong decision in the architects office.
The Creator of the story can only show a section of the world. The fan can create anything in it.
this theory holds up pretty well overall. speaking of trying to save the prequels, I have heard some people claim and/or interrupt ankain's story of pointing out why depending a "chosen one" is a terrible idea
I'm of the opinion that the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy was never that bad. So, when I first heard the theory that Jar Jar Binks is a Sith, I immediately took to it. It proves that the Prequel Trilogy isn't that bad and is in fact secretly awesome. I'm particularly taken by the argument that in the scene when Jar Jar jumps off the balcony with Qui Gon and Obi Wan where he kind of stumbles but still lands facing the right direction could only be if Jar Jar had back flipped through the air like we've seen Jedi do on occasion. But that could just be bad editing you say? Not so. If you look closely, you see not one, but two battle droids who seem to be following Jar Jar's trajectory through the air, and it looks like they're observing him do a back flip! You don't put that much effort into a mistake. I was almost completely certain that Supreme Leader Snoke was actually Jar Jar up until I saw The Force Awakens. I was actually a little upset because of it. My headcanon at the moment is that Jar Jar is the founder of the Inquisitors seen on Star Wars: Rebels.
I really like the idea of the Jar Jar is a Sith theory kind of straddling the boundary between fan theory and fan fiction. In the My Little Pony fandom, I have observed some people use fanfiction as the means to "correct" certain issues they may have had with particular episodes and what not. As of yet, I haven't really observed anything on the level of the Jar Jar is a Sith theory.
MariusIoannesP yes
The cool thing about the fan theory is that it still works even if they left it half finished.
I still argue that the final battle between Neo and Smith is the best live action DBZ style fight in film.
I shouldn't encourage this, but... When you showed Jar Jar meeting Quay, quai..Liam Neeson, I was struck with similarity to when Luke meets Yoda in "Empire'. Is acting the simple creature to be underestimated a jedi tactic both are employing?
They mention that in the reddit theory by lumpawaroo
I think one of the major reasons people put so much effort into trying to enjoy the prequel trilogy is because, buried under all the flaws, there are some very good moments. Mostly in the third film or in some of the casting choices but they are there. There's a feeling that if someone or something had intervened and worked on the writing and direction that these might have been as amazing as the original trilogy.
Another reason might be because they are canon movies, that can't really be ignored if you want to talk Star Wars as a fan. Unlike the EU, when it was canon, the prequel trilogy are too big and uncomplicated to be ignored or for people to pick and choose from. If you're going to have those films considered canon no matter what you do, you might as well find a headcanon or fan theory that allows you to ignore or overlook the many flaws and enjoy the films.
As a superhero in training, I approve of this video.
Lol i love your videos bro!
Jinxxed Thanks, brotha! Glad you enjoy em.
Jar Jar is the key to all this... maybe because Lucas planned his reveal in episode II.
It's obvious, George Lucas even says it himself: "Jar Jar's the key to all of this"
The fact that there's never that "reveal" moment that Mike mentions is a dead give-away that Lucas never intended him to be a Sith in disguise at all. It would have been jaw-dropping and amazing if in episode II or III Jar Jar IS revealed to be an evil trickster; but even if the writer's intended all of it, they dropped the ball on THE most important moment of that plot twist. That lack of a reveal, intentional or otherwise, left it as nothing more than a "meh, I don't really see it," hypothesis.
And if they wanted it to be this amazingly deep and difficult to uncover secret that the fans had to find on their own, they didn't leave ENOUGH evidence in my opinion. I know some theorists think the clues are undeniable, but I've had most/all of them explained to me. They're convincing as an accidental/coincidental thing without any authorial intent, like "Oh look how they accidentally made Jar Jar look like a bad guy!" But they're not at all convincing as a theory that the writers secretly, deliberately sneaked in.
I feel like this Jar Jar theory falls under the Pokemon war theory. The fact that it exists suggests more about what the fans want from the series than it does about the argument for the theory itself. I agree that it basically suggests people are itching to find some complex way to rescue the worst parts of the prequels, or twist them into something more tolerable.
That said, it's still an interesting theory and I think there's value in discussing it :)
+MagicTurtle643 One of the key points of the theory is that Jar Jar's roll was changed between the release of Episode 1 and the filming of Episode 2.
According to the theory Gorge was planning to do a longer version of the misdirection done with Yoda, stretching it from a few minutes to the whole movie. This backfired as he was seen as a very annoying Scrappy Doo type character and fans latched onto him as the embodiment of everything wrong with the movie. As damage control the scripts were retconed to downplay him and add a new villain in an attempt to save the rest of the trilogy. The planned reveal was removed.
Still unless Gorge comes out and says that this was what he had planned 'Darth Jar Jar' will remain nothing more than a fan theory.
+NobodyImportant Yeah, I did see that part in the video, which would explain it. I still don't think the evidence in Episode I is nearly enough to make me believe it though :P
+MagicTurtle643 Do agree with you there. It he was intended to be a hidden antagonist then I feel that fact was hidden a bit to well for the audience to buy it. Though sure in episode 2 they might have added more hits about it and make the reveal more smooth.
+Marion Leblanc Bad in different senses? Is that what you mean?
+Marion Leblanc Ah I see. Yeah I actually totally agree :)
Another redemptive fan theory is the Mass Effect Indoctrination Theory which is pretty weak in my opinion, but I perfectly understand why people choose to believe it. It is more consistent with previous canon than the actual ending.
Yessss.
+David Del Pozo Filíu I still aggressively disagree with the IT. The finale being rushed and altered at the last minute was a terrible mistake but I think people's real problem was that no matter what they didn't get a total win
+biohazard724 There probably people to whom that is an issue. To me and most of my friends though, the problem with the ending is much simpler.
It just doesn't make any sense, at all. The whole stupid synthetics vs. organics thing which ruins the whole motivation of the Reapers.
+ThingsStuffington That and all the endings were basically the same, and it ended badly for everyone in the galaxy no matter what. You spend all this time bringing everyone in the galaxy together and at the end
*SPOILER*
all the relays explode, killing most and effectively cutting everyone off from each other, effectively making everything you did and every choice you made until then pointless. The option of a total win should have been in there, but also a total loss or somewhere in between should have also been present (like the green ending).
While I do not remember the full theory, I remember the backlash of the ending. It's a similar situation in comparison to this theory. It try's to fix a well loved game from its terrible ending. Using the lore in another comparison to jar jar. If any one is interested just look up mass effect 3 ending and the theory for your self.
I would love an episode about the change to han solo based on him either shooting first or not with greedo. That one single scene literally changes his entire character from dirty smuggler who redeems himself in the end to an always noble has-been that's really a good guy when you get to know him.
The impact a single scene makes in the entire development of a character is a significant phenomena in film and I think talking about that would just be swell
I've never been the biggest Star Wars fan, but I have two friends who are the BIGGEST fans I've ever dealt with. I once listened to a friend's reasoning as to why the Attack of the Clones literally ruins the original trilogy, for 2 hours. I personally love the Darth Binks theory for the single reason that it REALLY pisses off my friends. They hate it, they hate it with such a passion that if it's brought up around them, there is visible disgust on their face. Honestly, the theory would redeem the Jar Jar Binks character, and would have actually made for a better episode II. Because honestly, killing off Darth Maul was a bad idea, he was the only character in the prequels that had any potential as a villain. (I know that he's still alive if you watch the clone wars cartoons). So, when they brought in Dooku, he was another villain that lasted one movie, being killed off in the beginning of episode III with what seems like no effort at all. If Binks was a sith, it would have added this arc throughout the prequels, where we would be rooting for Anakin to defeat him, to take out a friend, sinking into the dark side. I just don't see this being part of the original plan though, I don't trust Lucas to have been thinking that far ahead by himself. In the OT he was actually helped by other writers, co-directors, and so on. He never PERSONALLY made the movies. He always had help. The reason the prequels weren't good, is because he was surrounded by a bunch of "yes men." He was never challenged, so everything made it in.
Funny thing though, my girlfriend hates C-3PO with just as much passion as others have hated Jar Jar. We seem to forget that we had just as many ridiculous characters in the OT that were annoying as well. I just have to say that Jar Jar isn't the character that needs redeeming, it's the entire prequel trilogy. It's all poorly written, and poorly executed.
No, I don't think George Lucas ever planned on making Jar Jar a sith.
But personally that's the story I'm going to choose to believe
+Darth Savage I feel the exact same way and I think that's the most interesting thing about the whole Darth Jar Jar phenomenon. One can cerebrially know an inconvenient truth about a beloved fictional universe, but it sits in such stark contrast to how we feel about the rest of it that we opt to make post-hoc adaptions so that it's all consistent. But not only do we make the adaptions, but we can let the "improved" narrative occupy our mind OVER THE ORIGINAL until pressed otherwise. It's like there's Star Wars as it exists in the world but then there's our own personal Star Wars. When I think about it, I know that Jar Jar is a fumbling, bumbling, mistake-- but the immediate affect I feel towards the franchise is that hich would have been generated on a nearby philosophical world where Jar Jar was intended to be a sith lord. So I choose to feel one way for the sake of coherence even though that feeling is based upon a known falsehood.
The brain is trippy, man.
Man... Big props on your writing...
I mean.
You've been doing it all along, but the alliteration in "bile for binks began to bubble" just blew me away.
Bravo.
As I'm not a hater of the trilogy (well, except the Mario Bros lava fight), Jar Jar being a villain is the only thing that ever made sense to me. Lucas said that Jar Jar was meant to be the most important character in the story, so I watched him with that in mind. When the fan theory came around, it was a, "What took you so long?" Hey, it's better than a gas leak erasing a whole season of Community.
+Chris Abbey According to the novelization of The Phantom Menace, this was because Qui-Gon recognized Jar Jar as a Karmic Fool (Something young Obi-Wan was unable to understand) Essentially that the Force was using Jar Jar as a tool for its own purposes and Qui-Gon was following it.
I think that made sense (And was apparently approved, and maybe intended, by Lucas) but the film failed to convey that aspect of both Qui-Gon and Jar Jar successfully.
Geahk Burchill I didn't know that about the novelization. Was it enough to throw out the idea of him being a Sith Lord, and just a way for him to be a different danger? IOW, was he a dice throw (agent of chaos), or did he have a particular role that was teased?
Chris Abbey
Jar Jar was a tool of the Force with little or no understanding on his own. It was through Jar Jar's actions that Qui-Gon was able to "see the invisible hand" behind events. It was a really interesting take and could have really worked on film (had it been done well)
But, to answer your question, yes, it made it highly unlikely Jar Jar could be a Sith. Jar Jar is more like the ball in a pin-ball machine and Qui-Gon was in the role of trying to predict the score.
If I had to guess, Lucas probably planned to have the ultimate destination of the story be 'a PERFECT balance' of the force. The stagnant light side must fall in the prequels but then the dark side stagnates in the original trilogy so _it_ must fall. That would leave eps. 7,8 & 9 to finally achieve harmony between the two sides.
In that sense, Jar Jar was a tool of the force that was intended to help with the fall of the light side (In effort to find balance) but the Empire was then an over-correction. So, while not a _SITH_ Jar Jar was working to bring down the Republic. Just not consciously.
Geahk Burchill Thank you for that. I'll have to think about it in the face of new information.
Not all Star Wars fans hate the prequels I my self am a huge Star Wars fan and I LOVE the prequels and that number is growing because I think the people who grew up with the prequels like me are adults now and are starting to voice there opinions more. I personally don't mind jar jar my self he was made to appeal to the kids and I just go with it.
Woot! Spotted myself!
Jar Jar was almost certainly intended to be a Sith master, but unfortunately Lucas waited too long for the reveal. Had he at least given Jar-JAr an opportunity to give some sort of a nod or wink to Palpatine or done something only the audience could see to at least plant the seed of distrust in the first film it would have drastically changed the impression of the movie. People may have even forgotten to be quite as upset about miticlorians with such a twist from clumsy hateful garbage Jar-Jar to evil manipulating unexpected Jar-Jar.
This is what I believe to be the case as well. Although I never had a problem with Jar jar, for the people who did this may have made all of the difference. Unfortunately, it would also have lessened the reveal I think Lucas wanted to have but it turns out he miscalculated on some things.
I always figured the intersection of fanfiction and fan theory was the "headcanon."
At 2:56 In Episode VII, Rey doesn't move her hands when she uses Force assisted persuasion.
Aidan Ratnage Because they were tied down. I think she moved her head though.
When I first heard about the "Darth Jar Jar" theory, I thought it was a joke, like the classic "The Original Trilogy is actually about dying in front of Luke" theory, but about halfway through reading it I had a horrid moment where it not only seemed plausible, but might actually be true.
Personally, I have no interest in "saving" the prequels. In fact, most of my resistance to this theory is because I don't want to save them, but the evidence supporting Darth Jar Jar is just way too compelling for me to ignore, and as much as I still hate to admit this...I've searched my feelings. I know it to be true.
Seriously though, go look up the "Dying in front of Luke" theory. It is hi-larious.
As a person who was just a simple kid when Jar Jar Binks was shown I found him quite enjoyable. All of the gags and speaches were funny to me. His character was something that did classic slap stick humor (well poorly) in Star Wars. In the original the humor was more adult and less apparent to my younger self, but with Jar Jar I got most of the jokes. Jar Jar is he Olaf of Star Wars that meaning he serves a purpose thought not to well. I would welcome a Dark Jar Jar Binks in the story line. Keep up the great work.
There's another fascinating edge case surrounding the third Pirates of the Caribbean film, "At World's End." The ultimate status of a lead character's fate was demoted to the realm of "fan theory" after the exclusion of a single plot element. A key moment of exposition that explained how a certain piece of the universe's mythology was edited out of the final cut. The rest of the story, of course, was constructed in light of this element, so the reflections of it can still be seen in the final film, and the "rule" itself can be inferred with some interpretive gymnastics.
Not having it spelled out explicitly, however, left anyone who actually did the work of inferring it feeling a lot closer to fan theorist than anything else.
For those curious about the specifics of this plot element: Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) stabs the heart of Davy Jones and is charged with replacing his cursed position as Captain of the Flying Dutchman, doomed to ferry souls lost at sea to the other side. As the films spell out, this position is permitted to come ashore once every ten years, "to be with she who loves him." The deleted sequences explained that, if after the first ten years his love was true to him, the curse would be broken. If not, he would be doomed to an eternity of servitude. As I said, the remnants of this decision can be seen throughout the films, often in the broad motivations of the effected characters, but most particularly in an exchange between Jack Sparrow and Davy Jones in their climactic duel. Jack offers to stab the heart, gain immortality, and in his mind, free Jones. "I can set you free, mate." Jones' response to this is telling: "My freedom was forfeit long ago." No other previously described workings of the curse would make sense in the context of this line unless it was as described in the the deleted scene. This also goes a long way to justifying the level of hatred in Jones' voice when he finally faces his lost love again. "You weren't there," he spat with a particularly stung inflection.
The reason this has such large ramifications for the Will Turner character is in the reading of the film's post-credits sequence. Without this information, it seems a bittersweet once-every-ten-years meeting between lovers. WITH this information, it would appear that Elizabeth, their child in hand, had indeed been true to Will, and this scene actually represents the breaking of his curse.
"lacking in romance"
PSH
Shipping could be an entire PBSID episode.
I'll only (try to) answer the first question.
Jar Jar MIGHT have been intended as a sith master / collaborator, as he is seen in Episode I. The two slightly compelling reasons for this is the aformentioned "drunken fighting style" + luck that he demonstrates throughout the film, and (wich you left out of this video) his apparent ability to mimic, cast, or in the the least, influence voice and conversaion. (He is often seen in the background, somewhat mumbling in a way that can or should be seen as similarly to what the main characters of the scene are saying.)
Third reason: The Mule.
The fan theory of "darth jar jar" bears striking resemblance to the story of 'the Mule', in Asimov's Foundation-series. As we know, Lucas has usually been more about presentating ideas, than generating ideas himself. Alot is borrowd, be it from Dune or Star Trek. And if there is one point of influence of Asimov in the prequel-trilogy, it's the planet of Coruscant, wich readers of Asimov would recognise as a rip-off Trantor. To my knowledge, Asimov was first out with a description of this sort of "goverment city-planet", and I find it unlikely that Lucas where'nt intending his Coruscant to be nothing but a copy of that.
It's not too unlikely to think that Lucas might have wanted to lend another crucial element of the Fountaion-series, a certain twist, where, and I don't wanna spoil anything for whomever hasn't read Foundation (of wich you should), a character thought to be useless is actually the man behind the plan.
(My best answer to the other questions is that I love to talk about Isaac Asimov)
Pardon my bad english,
yours truly,
,J.
Oh, and sorry for making a hell of a lot of claims wich I don't provide examples of. I try to keep it short (I say 'try'), and listing examples of everything would take for ever.
So I guess I'll take it on good faith on you guys that you know what I'm talking about.
much love
That spoiler warning. Jar Jar is so evil, he even spoils IPs he's never been in.
Honestly, even when watching Jar Jar for the first time... I kept thinking "the force is strong with this one!" I mean, it is amazing how jar jar always seems to 'luck out' to the point where I believe it cannot be luck. Indeed! he must be a super skilled force user!
I also really liked him as a character. (: I'm not ashamed to say it. d: Anyway.
Personally, I always thought he was a sort of "natural force user." Kind of like a super talented genius next door that no one knows about. I don't think he was even aware of his power.
Although I never knew he fell to the dark side. My guess is, he didn't even know the extent of his true power. He could have made a great jedi, but the dark side unlocked his true abilities first. And the rest, they say, is history. d:
So basically, he's evil Nathan Barnatt
A huge chunk of Harry Potter fandom does this kind of redemptive headcanon-building too (and I argue always has) - they notice huge holes in the narrative, especially when compared to modern-day concepts of intersectionality, and try to build ways to make the HP world more representative and inclusive. This gets into very academic territory - a bunch of us interested in international Potterverse culture, for instance, came up with this elaborate set of stories and headcanons around colonialism and magic in the Potterverse, including some theories around wands being a tool of colonialism and how indigenous Asian and African magical cultures would not have needed wands to perform magic (and we got vindicated when JK Rowling said as much in a recent Pottermore update!).
+Creatrix Tiara I've forced myself to stay away from reading too much on this because I'm supposed to be doing school work atm - but what are your thoughts on the recent issues w/ the "Magic in N. America" Pottermore content about Native Americans? Read a couple of disappointed takes after it came out, am at that stage where I want to get all the perspectives
+Humanist+ my perspective is limited because I'm not NA myself, but it does seem like a well-meant gesture that didn't come off well. It might have worked better if JK Rowling didn't already use a culturally significant term ("skinwalker") and if she wasn't so glib about racism. I do remember when Fantastic Beasts was first announced that people were worried that there WON'T be any Indigenous representation.
So I've been watching Star Wars: The Clone Wars, and interestingly Jar Jar shows up in a couple ways that kinda suggest he's a force user.
In S1E8: "Bombad Jedi," Jar Jar is mistaken for a jedi because of his outfit, but then goes on to tame a giant predatory swamp worm, and animal taming and control is something shown to be pretty impressive even for Jedi. It's not difficult for me to imagine that the writers were making a nod to Lucas' original intentions.
In S2E3: "Supply Lines," Jar Jar has to distract a table full of dinner guests, and to do so he builds a delicate tower of plates and glasses, carrying and tossing plates with more precision than humanly possible. This is bumbling Jar Jar we're talking about, and he doesn't drop a single plate! It makes a lot more sense when you imagine he's a force user.
Now, I personally don't like the sith lord theory, but I really love the idea that Jar Jar is both dumb and skilled in the force and inherently in combat. Just the idea that he has potential locked away in his clumsy head that only appears during his most adrenaline filled moments helps me think of him in a more respectful light.
+Nathan Ware While those are great points and I'm totally on board with Jar Jar force powers, I don't think people should respect a character more after they're revealed to have inherent power. It's like giving superman more respect than batman because he's stronger even though batman trains for his fighting skills and runs a company to sustain his cash flow.
+003dylan I feel as if the respect he is speaking of is only given due to the character in question having more depth than 'that one quirky character,' and perhaps not just because they have super powers. Respect for a character's...character, I suppose.
Tak-Tak Naark
I feel that's like saying. "no one likes our comic relief, let's give him a huge gun! Character Design!" over exaggerating a bit but I feel like it's a lazy way to make a character matter instead of developing them into a respectable character, like if Jar Jar took time off of being doofy to face real conflict and grow from it.
oh my god, am i going to watch the entire franchise for this?
+Positronic + And The Clone Wars!
Stanley for sure ;)
Positronic + Don't forget the Netflix-only ones!
I live for your perfectly timed script pauses.
The later seasons of the clone wars tv series give the prequels a bit more perspective that make them easier to watch. Still can't stand Jar Jar.. or should I say Darth Jar Jar?
The clone wars is basically canon fan fictionalized theorizing though.
So's Rebels.
And i mean absolutely no disrespect by that. If there's one universe that thrives by canonizing fan fiction, it's Star Wars. Even more than Star Trek.
The scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz was dumber than Jar Jar. I don't see how people can let him ruin the whole movie so easily.
***** The scarecrow was both, he would never stop stumbling everywhere and did dumb things like urge talking trees to throw apples at everyone. In the end, "annoyance" is subjective and it's the mind of the viewer of a movie that determines if something is annoying in it, not the writing of the script writer.
hey hey Cap :D
now you should get a JarJar mod into Xcom and do him some love :P
Most stars wars fans love the cgi clone wars cartoon......its dam good.......
No that alternate Breaking Bad ending is not at all satisfying. There's also no way that Walt could have known Jesse was imprisoned.
1) I think Jar-Jar was almost certainly originally intended to be a Sith Lord, but after his negative reception, the writers changed their minds. Therefore, he isn't a Sith Lord canonically, but would have been if The Phantom Menace didn't suck.
2) Another example of a redemptive fan theory is +FilmTheory's examination of the Architect's speech in the Matrix, and come to think of it, all of the fan theories made about the Matrix covered by +FilmTheory. They collectively redesign the universally hated ending to the adored movie's sequels, making it seem like a stroke of genius.
3) To answer this question, let's look at a broader question: why make fan theories in the first place? I think it shows a level of investment in a piece of media unrivaled by any other inspired piece of art, like a painting or even a fan fiction. It's a piece of creative literature made within the strict parameters of information given within the text or film. Fan theories are the mark of true fans, who have absorbed the story and seen deeper levels of it. As for Star Wars in particular, this explanation plays a factor, certainly, but something else here is at play: disappointment and, to an extent, grief. Die hard fans of Star Wars, who saw A New Hope when it first came out in theaters and religiously took in The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were ecstatic to hear that their favorite story was gaining some family members. It turns out those family members were babbling idiots. These die hards were so heartbroken that they refused to accept the quality of the movie at face value. So, they designed fan theories to find meaning in their loss. This is the denial stage of grief. Fans of Star Wars went in a mixed order of the five stages, ending in denial that culminated in acceptance: the acceptance of Darth Jar Jar.
My favorite bit of this fan theory is that it extends into aspects beyond the films themselves even re-interpreting Lucas's notorious "Jar Jar is the key to all this" line in the behind the scenes footage to have a far more expansive meaning.
Darth Darth Binks... lol
Darth Jar Jar sounds better
I find the Darth Binks theory very compelling, though it's hard to say if I find it that way because I want it to or because it makes sense. But I would still classify this as a theory and not a fan-fiction because the author used content already in the movies to justify and back the theory, as opposed to recreating the entire trilogy based on the idea of darth binks
FROM MY POINT OF VIEW JAR JAR IS EVIL! Sorry, can never resist an excuse to use that hilariously awful quote. In all seriousness, I definitely don't think Lucas intended Jar Jar to be a Sith Lord. However, until he comes out and flat out says Jar Jar isn't one, I'd say there's a fair chance he's really a villain. Besides, it's not like this kind of thing has never happened in a series before. I won't go into specifics, but just in case, spoiler warning for the last case in the second Ace Attorney game:
One character in the game acts like a total imbecile the entire time, even acting like he doesn't realize what's going in when he gets arrested at one point. However, when you finally discover his dark past and confront him about it, he's revealed to have been playing everyone for food the entire time, and he turns out to be the case's true villain.
I remember watching a video a few years back of a vlogger literally explaining how he would have done the prequels, essentially making obiwan the main character and anakin turning into vader as a backdrop part of the setting. It was really good and this was way before the Darth Binks theory became popular.
I first noticed Jar Jar's drunken fist style on my very first viewing of menace. Weeks later I was telling people online that he had to be connected to the force.
Once I heard the theory of him being a Sith, I was fully on board.
I have been filling plot holes in media much of my life, the good and the bad. Some of my best Fanfiction does exactly that.
One interesting fan theory that fixes M. Nights, Sign's: They're demons, not aliens.
The water thing? The daughter blessed it(she was referenced as blessed in the movie).
The demons first met resistance in the middle east? Holy sites.
The demon's awkwardness? They were not faster than light travelers, but demon refuges. (Why the "aliens" had no weapons.)
Inability to break through wooden doors? Traditional elements of demonology(remember vampires and wooden stakes).
Not to mention the whole story revolves around a former priest, visions, and would add M. Night's signature twist.
Maybe Jar Jar is a metaphor for George Lucas as a creator. Alone they seem goofy, unfocused, but in collaboration of other people is an unstoppable juggernaut and a social infuanser for the world to recognize in movies or the dark side or both.
but the true villain here, if true is cold feet. if you go left field with a villain stick with your guns and take on the world. i would rather be criticize by my best plan A then a hastily made plan B.
In my mind, the effort put into this is a testament to how beloved the star wars franchise is to people, and that if one is unable to overlook the negatives in the prequels, they need to reimagine them in order to get to the good parts.
I also think that if this "theory"/"fan fiction" were canonized by inclusion in the new movies, it would better the franchise as a whole by fixing what many see as a blunder.
9:41 - Your eyes in that shot...
My favorite fan theory is that Miss Frizzle is a Time Lady and the Magic School Bus is a Tardis. It's a highly cohesive connection, and it takes something we all know and love and elevates it to a fandom.
I've been looking at and thinking about this theory for a while. After re watching the prequels I still find it hard to believe that he is a sith lord. However, the strongest proponent to the myth is George Lucas himself. When talking about the original trilogy, he mentioned using the heroes journey as the main framework which always involved meeting a strange creature in an isolated area who turns out to be much more important than they originally appear to be. This is Yoda to a T. Now, think of how he talked about the prequel and the idea that it was intended to be a foil, a complete mirror to the originals. We watch the journey of the villain. We see the fall of a character, and instead of having our strange creature be the ultimate good whom we love, he is the ultimate evil whom we despise.
That fanfic at 6:35 sounds amazing... I doubt I would actually read it, but I love it.
I want JJ Abrams to insert Jar Jar's shadow being cast over a major scene in one of the movies to come, just to give the subscribers to this theory a sense of pieces being put together. Just one shadow in a one second clip can make the movies, especially the prequels, so much better and more deep.
One fan theory that was pretty prominent was the "Ghost survived the flames" in Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2. People just did not want to let go of such an interesting character like Ghost. I remember claims of cut out dialogue stating that they wore fire proof gear in that final mission, people were pretty dedicated to that theory.
I think the most successful redemptive fan theory within this decade (though this is my opinion, so whatevs) is the Coulson Lives fan theory. So many people fell in love with this understated character that when he was killed off in Avengers, nearly everyone immediately insisted that he couldn't be dead, though part of that is helped along by Fury's play with the "bloodied" cards. So many people within the Marvel Movie fandom were so insistent about Coulson's survival that a whole TV show is devoted to him and his exploits with his crew. He's even made it into comic book canon! If this is not the most successful, then it is definitely one of the loudest fan theories to be acknowledged by the canon creators.
I’m not sure if this is because of my age but I really enjoyed Jar Jar in the film, he added some comic relief and his gags were just hilariously in a very serious world.
You have NO idea how many times my friends have mentioned this theory. Holy cow, do they love it.
as a 10 year old, I enjoyed his comic relief honestly. as an adult, I find the sith rewrite theory to be a fun way to reframe the character to get more entertainment out of the same work. I can now watch either as a nostalgic viewer or as an analytical story critic.
*Gnoggin* already convinced me.
But you, are always so enchanting.~
I'd blame myself for eternity (not really) if I were to miss this episode!~
I don't believe this theory for a second, but the full theory is so well-argued and sincerely-worded it comes across as funny and endlessly entertaining for me
I wonder how this relates to things like the debate over whether Snape was a hero or a villain. The general consensus in this fan theory seems to be that it comes from a place of wanting to justify/apologize for Jar Jar, as though he can't stand on his own merits as a character. But what if it comes from a place of loving Jar Jar, and is really a way of framing him in a way that allows others to love him too?
A redemptive fan theory for the Matrix sequels is that Neo isn't actually The One. Its actually Smith
It makes Reloaded and Revolutions worth another look.
1. No.
2. The Battlestar Galactica Cylonism is an STD. It explains why seemingly human characters turn out to be cylons even near the very end, because they became cylons after catching a disease which turned them into cylons because every character who was revealed as a cylon had sex with another cylon character.
Also the fan theory that Walter White did do everything in the ending, but didn't die as we see a paramedic checking his pulse at the very end. Meaning he survived and would actually face justice for his crimes. Thanks to MatPat for that one.
3. Because the original trilogy was such a cultural event, we tried to recapture that magic after Lucas spent three films focused mostly on world building than story development.
I wonder if there might be a "redemptive fan theory" around Don Quixote. From conversations I've had with people about the book, there seem to be two camps: one camp who thinks that the way Don Quixote is presented is exactly how he should be interpreted, and another camp that seems to think that no, there's actually a game being played with the reader and he is not actually insane at all, but acting out insanity for various reasons (to do what he wants to in his old age, teach friends the value of belief in oneself and their ideas, etc.).
The reason I might call the latter a "redemptive fan theory" is that it can be seen as 'fixing' the ending. The first camp would see a sad, crazy man finally realizing the error of his ways, effectively rendering Quixote a tragic, foolish character. But the latter camp, not accepting the portrayal of Quixote at face value, can now read the ending as that of a clever teacher with nothing left to teach.
I also begin to wonder what the differences between a redemptive fan theory and something that's simply a different interpretation are.
What's amazing to me is the uniquely creative process behind fan-theories. They have to use only what already exists (i.e. the actual canon), and yet completely twist its meaning into a new form that in no way contradicts anything canonical.
I never would have conceived of the idea of Jar Jar as a Sith Lord. But after hearing this theory, I rewatched Episodes I, II, & III, and it makes perfect sense! There was never a moment where I thought, "No, that theory doesn't hold up in this scene."
I think, whether or not you agree that Jar Jar being Sith is 'canonical', having conceived of that idea is itself a wonderful creative feat that is worthy of our praise.
Actually I really liked Noelle Stevenson's theories on Jango Fett and Zam Wesell, I don't even like the prequels but I LOVED where she went with it - made that entire unsatisfying assassin-for-hire storyline interesting, AND it connects with the orig-trig!
I love the idea of Dart Jar Jar, he could have shed the annoying accent when he was revealed to Mace Windo who fought him rather than the emperor, while at the same time Sidious was fighting Yoda and Anakin and Obi-Wan were on Mustafaar.
Binks as Gray Jedi (or "many colors of the force") blowing up both the Jedi Counsel and the Sith is more interesting.
Imagine: the next movie opens, and Luke has been training with Binks to understand why both the Sith AND the Jedi (as Luke was recreating them) were problematic and doomed to cause problems.
"Lukas" Also, I fell in love with this theory when someone linked it to me several weeks ago.
BUT HEYYY... THIS IS JUST A THEORY. A FIIILM THEORY!
I need a "there's a fan theory about that" gif :D
in an earlier draft, Jar Jar was actually a mercenary who betrayed Qui Gon in the 3rd act of the film. he was then rewritten as the character he is after George Lucas felt he needed some way to appeal to kids
The greatest source of true fan-redemptive theorizing is 'Memory Alpha' the Star Trek wiki - it's amazing, there fans have done the work that the decades of different writing staffs and creative leads couldn't, meticulously linking and repairing thousands of scraps of off-hand comments and technical information into a cohesive canon, all within what is pre-established canon and possible within the set limits of the setting. I wish I had a specific example, but seriously it's amazing, there have been so many times where the simplest interpretation of some facet of a single episode has drawn a straight line between dialogue written decades apart and it WORKS.
... I was a huge Topher Grace fan for a long time (the I actually really like In Good Company kind of fan) and I never knew about the Topher Grace cut of Star Wars. You have improved my day 1 million fold.
I recently came across the idea that within the Star Trek universe we humans are kind of the Jar Jar Binks of the universe. And that's why only our ship (or rather the federation's ships build and mostly manned by humans) face all the malfunctions we see in the various series. No other species faces these challenges. I really enjoyed that thought.
Qui-gon Jinn and Darth Maul were using Force Telepathy to communicate Qui's death in Duel of Fates scene, as Qui remained loyal to Dooku, who in turn conspired with Palpatine. Qui knew Force Ghost and was unafraid of death, but needed to choreograph a believable death between he and Maul to convince the Jedi Council to take in Anikin as a Padawan to Kenobi, thus initiating the events of episode 2 and onward.
Y'know, I really didn't hate Jar Jar as much as I hated Anakin. Can we come up with a fan theory to explain him away?
Yes; George Lucas doesn't know how to direct actors.
+Adam Hoffman Hey, tiny child!Anakin did as well as he could.
+Adam Hoffman I feel sorry for Hayden. Dude has a good presence about him, good with action, an expressive fae... he just had a bad script and poor direction. Guy CAN act.... he was just dealt a bad hand.
A fan theory I heard recently I really liked was that the aliens in signs were actually demons, and that Bo's character blessed the water around the house making it holy water which is why the alien was hurt by it, doesn't explain everything but is more coherent with the religious bent/theme of the movie
Or the writers were just idiots.
It seems plausible. I tweeted Lucas asking this very question, but he has yet to respond.
I don't have a fan theory to contribute, but more of an idea for a fan fiction, or at least a way these movies could have been better. Since the orig-trig drew heavily on popular genres (westerns, samurai, greek tragedies, etc) I would have loved it if the prequel trilogy had drawn on different genres that would have made sense to the story points.
The romance between Padme and Anakin would have been more plausible if he had been the rugged or tall, dark and handsome archetype of romance novels. Almost every moment of their interaction had led me to believe they were never going to hook up. Him whining to her about Obi-wan's treatment of him should have friend zoned him for the rest of the trilogy. If there had been a romance the audience could believe, it would have made Anakin's fall much more significant.
I'd like to say there was a bit of a buddy cop thing going on, but looking at the best films in that genre, you can tell why the Obi-wan/Qui-gon, Anakin/Obi-wan relationship didn't have the same impact. Most duos of this type are completely mismatched in a way so that at some point, it becomes clear that they really work together quite well, because of their differences. If this was a genre Lucas was trying to draw from, he did so poorly. If not, then he could have made some of these relationships function in a more satisfying way.
Darth Maul would have been much more bad-ass if they had treated him like a slasher villain. (Watch the movie "Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon" (2006) if you haven't yet, it does a great job of exploring the elements of a slasher film.) How cool would it have been to see him throughout the movie stalking and killing Jedi? Instead, we just get to see him pop up for a moment, and then again to get cut in half and tossed away.
+Bill Malcolm
Did you ever get a response?
No, the G-man has yet to respond. Probably hates us all for being disappointed in the prequels and paying to see episode 7
Jar Jar is the Dio of Star Wars.
Jar Jar: Yousa taught it was Palpy, but it was Mesa all along Darth Jar Jar!
+ShadowWolfRising JAR JAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR
Taxi Driver, I think, is the oldest example of this in mainstream movies. The ending can be interpreted as literal, but much like Breaking Bad, many fans prefer to imagine the thematic conclusion is only literal to the protagonist, who can be assumed to have met an nonpoetic but realistic end by the logic of the scene.
I think the reason people want so badly for the prequels to be good is because of how important Star Wars is to our culture. It's also the reason people were so ridiculously critical of The Force Awakens, even though it wasn't much worse than the originals. When Phantom Menace came out, everyone denied that it was terrible. But we can all pretty much agree that it's a disappointment of a movie. By fixing Jar Jar, it somehow makes the sting of the prequels a little less hurtful.