Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Deviant EvilTrapZOther/Unknown Recent Activity
Deviant for 2 Years
Needs Core Membership
Statistics 44 Deviations 616 Comments 5,175 Pageviews



Jar Jar Binks, is the evil Yoda. by EvilTrapZ
Jar Jar Binks, is the evil Yoda.

I know this isn’t original. Here’s my take.


Forget the prequels for a moment and think back to the old Star Wars. Think how easily Yoda, could have been replaced with Jar Jar. While Skywalker is looking for some legendary Jedi, he stumbles across a retarded midget. Retarded sounds quite derogatory but it bloody well should be because that’s exactly how Yoda, behaves when Anakin first meets him. Yoda, is foaming at the mouth retarded. But after not too long Yoda, drops the act and we see his true nature though his grammar only improves a little bit. That’s another thing. Besides acting brain-dead though this may be splitting hairs both characters have terrible grammar.


Now unlike the lovable Yoda, Jar Jar Binks, is famously despised. But just think how Yoda, would have been received if he had kept up the act for almost three straight films? People probably wouldn’t have hated him as much as Jar Jar, because he still wouldn’t be CGI. But people would have still thought of him as that little annoying sidekick.


Now look at the physical appearances for a moment. If you take the character of Yoda, and you want to design a new evil character based on him that retains some of his traits but is at the same time reversed what do you do? Well Yoda, is old, short and stubby so logically the new character should be young, tall and lanky.


I heard a couple jokes after episode one about Jar Jar Binks, being a secret Drunken Kung Fu Jedi Master. But at the time most people just meant it as a joke. The fact that Jar Jar Binks, sometimes incompetently saves the day can easily be dismissed as a joke.


But I find the comparison between Jar Jar Binks, and Yoda, and how suspiciously similar they are in some ways while being perfect opposites to be much more compelling. Of course in real life this comparison would be meaningless. But in fiction it does mean quite a bit. I can usually guess what is going to happen in a story based on what I would write if I was part of the writing team. There is just a certain way that most people thread plot points together that is very predictable even when they are going for a twist.


The second point is though Jar Jar Binks, presents himself as being quite clumsy and incompetent and the Village idiot and so on and so forth not one of his people ever say one word to suggest that this is true. They clearly don’t like him but the idea that this is because he is the Village idiot is 100% based on the fact that he tells the Jedi this directly. A line of Jar Jar’s just as they are exiting his home city points out that if the Jedi, hadn’t taken Jar Jar, with them he would have been executed. So whatever is in Jar Jar’s past is quite serious but it is never suggested by any character other than Jar Jar, that it was some form of clumsy mishap. His people never say anything to deny or confirm this. In fact they are suspiciously vague in their contempt for Jar Jar, almost as if it was one giant calculation by the writers. It is strange that not one of his people throw a single comment his way like “Oh no not that idiot again” or “Quickly hide the good china.” Instead they are afraid and give no hint to why.


This is how you write a twist. Reiterating this one last time. I find it suspicious that even though we see characters from Jar Jar’s passed who know him the only evidence that he is the Village idiot still comes directly from the mouth of Jar Jar, himself. What we have is a Village idiot who actually introduces him self as such who’s people are clearly wary of him while never giving any hint to why.


The (Jar Jar Binks, is the true villain) theory has been quite popular for a while now and many people have pointed out many things supporting this idea. The thing that everyone of these concepts have in common is that they always say Jar Jar, is only playing the fool. Jar Jar, was up to something from day one. In an interview the actor who played Jar Jar Binks, said in a very slow and conscious way that screamed “If I confirm something that Lucas, doesn’t want me to then he’s going to sue my ass.” That some of the things people are saying are correct and some are not.” As I said every single one of these things people were saying deliver the same message. So even if half the things that people are saying do not prove that Jar Jar, was a dark Jedi, so long as the other half do it has the same result. It’s not like there’s a second theory that says Jar Jar, is a supermodel on the side. All of these little theories are saying that Jar Jar, is a Dark Jedi Mastermind. So if even one is true then that means “Yes Jar Jar, is a Dark Jedi Mastermind.”


I might add more to this later. 

A manga review.

I’ll paint a scenario for you. The hero of whatever story you’re reading is approached by a slaver who desires to sell him a slave. What does the hero do? Well the answer is simple. The hero chops off the slavers head steals his keys, runs to the cages where the slaves are shackled and opens up all the cages and removes all the shackles and dramatically yells out “Run my brothers you are free.”

Well that’s not what happens in this story. In this story the protagonist just happily buys the slave who is immediately and painfully branded and continues to conduct business with the slaver over the course of the story without ever hinting that the protagonist even has the slightest moral problem with this character who sells humanoid livestock. There is also the question of what happens to slaves that the slaver can’t sell. I don’t think the answer is he gives them their freedom unless you want to get technical in a very dark kind of way.

Well anyway this is actually why I freaking love the story. It is simply that I grew up watching a lot of shows along the lines of Captain Planet, where 100% of the time the protagonist has that tooth whitener smile and wouldn't jaywalk to save his life. So whenever anything kind of breaks some rules related to what the protagonist is and is not allowed to do I immediately find it refreshing.

There is even a bit at some point where the medieval protagonist is fighting a duel to prevent his slave gaining her freedom which is 100% the opposite of what the protagonist is meant to do. Instead the protagonist is meant to be fighting the dragon or the evil wizard to free the damsel in distress but instead it is 100% reversed. Unsurprisingly as someone who grew up being beaten over the head with clichés I couldn't love the unconventional morality of that more.

But don’t get the wrong idea. Past condoning slavery he is actually a pretty nice guy and is perfectly pleasant towards his slaves. There is a minor spoiler for you. But I won’t say any more on that past pointing out that the number of his slaves doesn’t end at one.

Still being kind to his slaves after brutally branding them doesn’t totally remove the protagonist from anti-hero territory.

Now there is more to this world then that such as a kind of RPG logic where people literally get RPG points for killing monsters for some reason but I don’t really feel like going into that. Besides 95% of the story is character focused anyway.

Still I've hopefully said enough to give you at least some idea of what you would be getting into with the story. Personally I like it, I’m very positive about it and so on and so forth.

Note: This is only my second review so I hope it wasn't too rough around the edges.
Faith as evidence by EvilTrapZ
Faith as evidence
Lazy but it does sum up my thoughts on that very pacific point.

President Jed Bartlet: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality "an abomination".
Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.
Bartlet: Yes, it does. Leviticus.
Jacobs: 18:22.
Bartlet: "Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it OK to call the police? Here's one that's really important, 'cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?"
—The West Wing, "The Midterms"

The thing that I was wondering is how do you decide that a storie is to psycho? You see I was reading a response article to the Slender Man, stabbing and anyway something mentioned in the article is that sometimes stories are rejected for being too psycho. So apparently in some cases instead of the writer being told: "Good job on writing something twisted for this horror website." They are instead told: "You need to seek serious psychiatric help because it is implausible that you were deliberately writing in a mean natured manner for your horror story because that wouldn't make any sense. Who ever heard of a horror story which made people feel uncomfortable? How absurd." My question is how do you distinguish between intentionally and unintentionally psycho writing? Though I will point out that plenty of good writers actually do have psychological problems. Anyway considering the fact that in professional fiction we get stuff like Hannibal Lecter, eating a guys brain while he is still alive and even going so far as to feed the unfortunate man some of his own brain I find it hard to imagine how something could cross a line.

I'm not asking simply out of innocent curiosity because you see I'm actually writing something at the moment that is extremely dark. It's never really mean for the sake of being mean but it's still quite dark.

Edit: You know after taking some more time to reflect on it I've come to the conclusion that it was probably just absolute bullshit just said to save face. I mean I think that I have seen everything at some point on Creepypasta, including a story where someone takes a pair of pliers to their dogs teeth until they had pulled out every single one. So unless they believed that a story would get them label bigots for offending some pacific group I do not believe there are any lines they would not cross. So yeah that's probably just absolute bullshit. Disagree?


EvilTrapZ's Profile Picture
My avatar used to be a bear trap and the "Z" is silent.

Basic Belief About Myself: I will inevitably say something stupid that I regret.

I used to have more pictures up here including ones of myself but I've lost interest in DeviantArt. So I don't do much here anymore.

You can look me up here:

AdCast - Ads from the Community



Add a Comment:
VelvetTouches Featured By Owner Mar 28, 2016
Thanks for the fav sweetie. :hug:
EvilTrapZ Featured By Owner Mar 29, 2016
You're welcome. Hug
Hidden by Owner
Hidden by Commenter
owlstudioart Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2015  Professional Traditional Artist
Thanks for fav!
EvilTrapZ Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2015
You're welcome.
owlstudioart Featured By Owner Nov 4, 2015  Professional Traditional Artist
TheFireAngel Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015
thanks for the fav
EvilTrapZ Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015
You're welcome.
Add a Comment: