Former Star Wars prequels star Ahmed Best had suicidal thoughts after Jar Jar Binks hate!

[Mr Allen]

Link.

Star Wars geeks are THE worst IMO, 20 years ago the world and his Wookiee hated the Jar Jar character in Phantom Menace and took to the Internet to complain about him, much like butt hurt Star Wars geeks crying about Disney and the current sequel trilogy.

But driving an actor to suicidal thoughts because of the hate? How about no?

I get that the Jar Jar character had a large part in Episode 1, but his role was decreased in Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith, probably because of the negative fan reaction.

 

[Fino]

At first I thought it was silly, but then I read the article and I guess I hadn't imagined it would be that bad.

People are scary.

 

[AGXStarseed]

When any series does something that members of a fanbase consider to be 'wrong' or even 'damaging', you will always find those fans who take things too far with long (often expletive filled) rants and on occasion death threats.

A good example I found was for Boku No Hero Academia 5 months ago when Tumblr fans were sending death threats to Kohei Horikoshi over his latest chapter at the time.
Another example was after Season 5, Episode 8 of Samurai Jack, in which Jack and Ashi shared a kiss and fans went nuts online; some because they pointed out that while Jack looks around 25 he hasn't aged in 50 years so they thought it was kind of gross when he kissed Ashi (who was in her 20's); others went nuts because they wanted Ashi to have a lesbian relationship with a character who previously had appeared in only one episode. (I can't provide links as the Autism Forum's staff don't allow linking to anything with bad language)
Then there's other franchises such as Fast and the Furious and Star Trek, which have come under fire in the past from fans.

In regards to what happened to Ahmed, I do think it's horrible and - speaking as a Star Wars fan - I wouldn't condone any of what was done to him. Bullying (as all of us here will agree) is a vile and disgusting act that no-one should be subjected to.
As for Jar Jar Binks, I wasn't that bothered by him; heck, I've seen much worse characters in science fiction movies. Me and my Mum always laugh when we hear him say "How wude!" and seeing him during the Battle of Naboo when he gets that broken Battle Droid stuck to his foot and starts using it to kill the other battle droids and cripple a Droideka cracks me up.

At the end of the day, angry and gobby fans online who want to scapegoat/attack someone because they don't like something to do with their favourite franchise are nothing new. I wish that wasn't the case and I hope in the future it won't be, but until then we have deal with this kind of thing as best we can.
What's more, it's important to note that these angry people are often just a loud minority and don't represent an entire fanbase, so it's not fair to "tar everyone with the same brush", so to speak - especially if someone has genuine concern with a part of the franchise they're a fan of and wants to offer some constructive criticism to try and rectify a problem.

 

[Mr Allen]

When any series does something that members of a fanbase consider to be 'wrong' or even 'damaging', you will always find those fans who take things too far with long (often expletive filled) rants and on occasion death threats.

A good example I found was for Boku No Hero Academia 5 months ago when Tumblr fans were sending death threats to Kohei Horikoshi over his latest chapter at the time.
Another example was after Season 5, Episode 8 of Samurai Jack, in which Jack and Ashi shared a kiss and fans went nuts online; some because they pointed out that while Jack looks around 25 he hasn't aged in 50 years so they thought it was kind of gross when he kissed Ashi (who was in her 20's); others went nuts because they wanted Ashi to have a lesbian relationship with a character who previously had appeared in only one episode. (I can't provide links as the Autism Forum's staff don't allow linking to anything with bad language)
Then there's other franchises such as Fast and the Furious and Star Trek, which have come under fire in the past from fans.

In regards to what happened to Ahmed, I do think it's horrible and - speaking as a Star Wars fan - I wouldn't condone any of what was done to him. Bullying (as all of us here will agree) is a vile and disgusting act that no-one should be subjected to.
As for Jar Jar Binks, I wasn't that bothered by him; heck, I've seen much worse characters in science fiction movies. Me and my Mum always laugh when we hear him say "How wude!" and seeing him during the Battle of Naboo when he gets that broken Battle Droid stuck to his foot and starts using it to kill the other battle droids and cripple a Droideka cracks me up.

At the end of the day, angry and gobby fans online who want to scapegoat/attack someone because they don't like something to do with their favourite franchise are nothing new. I wish that wasn't the case and I hope in the future it won't be, but until then we have deal with this kind of thing as best we can.
What's more, it's important to note that these angry people are often just a loud minority and don't represent an entire fanbase, so it's not fair to "tar everyone with the same brush", so to speak - especially if someone has genuine concern with a part of the franchise they're a fan of and wants to offer some constructive criticism to try and rectify a problem.

Yeah, it was like in December 2017 when Last Jedi came out, everyone and his dog complained about Luke Skywalker dying at the end! Big deal! Obi-Wan Kenobi was killed by Darth Vader in Episode 4 and still came back in ESB and ROTJ.

And remember in 2015 when Force Awakens came out, everyone complained about Han Solo's death, it was part of the story for God sake!

And the late Carrie Fisher will still be in Episode 9 even though she passed away just after Force Awakens came out as I recall, yes she's physically in it, not a CGI image of her.

 

[Fino]

My favorites were the three everyone hated, and I liked Jar Jar Binks! That's probably another diagnosis right there!

 

[AGXStarseed]

Yeah, it was like in December 2017 when Last Jedi came out, everyone and his dog complained about Luke Skywalker dying at the end! Big deal! Obi-Wan Kenobi was killed by Darth Vader in Episode 4 and still came back in ESB and ROTJ.

And remember in 2015 when Force Awakens came out, everyone complained about Han Solo's death, it was part of the story for God sake!

And the late Carrie Fisher will still be in Episode 9 even though she passed away just after Force Awakens came out as I recall, yes she's physically in it, not a CGI image of her.

When Obi Wan died in Episode 4, that was the very first film in the franchise to be released and the film in which he was introduced, so we'd never seen him previously and as such, his death was sad but not major - especially when he came back in the sequels as a 'force ghost'.

The reason people complained about Luke and Han dying in those situations is because Luke and Han were characters that Star Wars fans had gotten to know for decades; not just in the movies but in the novels, comics, games, etc that followed. They were given time and stories to develop and for people to grow to admire/love them.
As such, it was much more of an emotional impact when they came back, only to be killed off quite disrespectfully; Han Solo getting stabbed by his son during a conversation and Luke dying after sending a 'force projection' to fight Kylo - with many (myself included) pointing out that if Luke was going to die then why didn't the filmmakers just make him physically show up, have an epic battle with Kylo and maybe with the Walkers and die at the end of that?
(Granted, Luke apparently may not be dead as he may appear alive in Episode 9 but that's yet to be seen).

You personally may not think it, but for a lot of people the characters they see in books, comics, tv shows, video games and movies aren't just characters in a work of fiction - they're living, breathing people who we grow to admire and emotionally connect with; especially when we get to know them for a long time. We get to know their personalities, their loves and hates, their goals and fears, what makes them tick, etc.
It's because of this why we get upset when they fail/die, we cheer when they succeed, we remain interested when we watch them grow and develop, we sympathize with them when they have to go through difficult times, etc.
It's also because of this that we get angry when someone who doesn't understand the characters makes them do something that they wouldn't do because of how 'out of character' it is. It's one of the reasons fans got so upset regarding Luke in the new trilogy, as in the original films Luke tried and succeeded to turn one of the most evil men in the Star Wars franchise - who had slaughtered millions of men, women and children, devastated civilizations and destroyed planets - because he believed that there was good in him.

However, in the new trilogy Luke goes very much out of character and tries to kill his nephew - who currently has done nothing or barely anything evil - because Luke had a bad dream. That's not Star Wars fans been 'butt-hurt' and/or 'Disney-haters', that's Star Wars fans rightfully criticizing bad writing.

To put it into perspective, many people get upset in this scene from The Lion King.

I'm one of them; it's a sad scene and it tugs my heartstrings. However, most people will still keep watching to the end and will be satisfied as there's a happy ending.

However, now rewind back to the 80's and the Transformers Movie. This had followed after 2 seasons and 55 episodes of the Transformers TV Series, during which the children had watched it had really gotten to know the characters and grown to love them; watching the episodes, reading the comics, buying the toys, etc. with Optimus Prime becoming one of (if not the most) popular character on the show. It's important to note that throughout those two seasons, no character had ever been killed off.
When the movie came out, however, we then got this...

which was then followed by this...

For most kids, this is where they stopped watching - with plenty of reports of parents having to carry their hysterical children out of the cinemas because they were crying and bawling so much.
Not only did Hasbro receive a backlash from hundreds of angry parents regarding this, but it was reported that many kids were so traumatized by Prime's death that they put away their toys and didn't play with them again, with one report of one kid in particular who locked himself in his room for 2 weeks!
The backlash against Hasbro - who had killed off Prime and other characters in the film in order to replace them with new toys - was so bad that not only did they eventually bring Optimus back in the TV series, but they also had to edit their 1987 G.I.Joe animated movie (in which they had planned to kill off the main character Duke) to have the characters claim that Duke had 'gone into a coma'.
On top of that, they had to put a voiceover at the end of the movie for its UK release to tell any kids who were still watching to the end that Optimus would return.

 

[Autistamatic]

I dislike the toxic hate some fans spew online intensely. I didn't think JarJar was that bad, he was the comic relief just like C3PO was in the original trilogy. Yeah a few scenes made me cringe, but he was OK. There were much bigger things in the prequels to pick on too.
And Last Jedi was fun but not as much as Force Awakens imo. I thought Luke's nearly killing young Ben Solo was far more damaging to the image of the character than anything else in the movie.
I feel sad for Ahmed. It's a crying shame he was treated so bad.

 

[Mr Allen]

I dislike the toxic hate some fans spew online intensely. I didn't think JarJar was that bad, he was the comic relief just like C3PO was in the original trilogy. Yeah a few scenes made me cringe, but he was OK. There were much bigger things in the prequels to pick on too.
And Last Jedi was fun but not as much as Force Awakens imo. I thought Luke's nearly killing young Ben Solo was far more damaging to the image of the character than anything else in the movie.
I feel sad for Ahmed. It's a crying shame he was treated so bad.

Thing was though, back in the late 70's/early 80's when the original trilogy was out, most of the original cast complained that Anthony "C3PO" Daniels was hard to work with apparently.

 

[Iamnotarabot]

I have to not respond about this because otherwise I will just rant about TLJ with a wall of text...xD
I'm glad someone else is talking about that thought xD...But I cant stop xD

People being harassed because they portrayed a character the audience didnt like in a movie is obviously stupid and mean.
But this is being used as an argument to prevent anyone from criticizing the movie for what it is, objectivly a bad movie in every way.( that you have the right to like if you want ).

The funny thing is that it was the mass media who started the hate train against that actor who played jar jar ( and yes he was annoying during the first movie, but IMO it was smart to target a younger audience at the start of a trilogy that would go on for years.I personnaly grew up with the prequels, and I liked him when I was younger but now when I look at the phantom menace I understand that this character ruined the movie for a big part of the audience, and guess what, unlike nowadays with TLJ Lucas admitted he did a mistake, Disney will never do that, and not admitting you did something wrong is what hurts a brand in long term.)

But now mass media are just used as advertisers , and they dont promote any use of your intellect and your ability to criticize things. They just want you to buy stuff and to consume. Because they live off advertissement.

This old story has been brought back because many people complained about Rose Tico in TLJ as a forced diversity push that bring absolutly nothing to the movie ,and her inclusion just hurted the developpement of the story( and they are right) ; she left social media because she was supposivly the target of a huge wave of harassement online, ( that hasnt been proven ), so they want to make anyone who criticize fictionnal characters feel bad for it, sorry but that won't happen.

 

[Mr Allen]

The difference when the original trilogy first came out, and Return of the Jedi hit the screens in 1983, the Internet hadn't been invented yet, so there was no medium for butt hurt geeks to vent their rage, well there was still various magazines etc to write into.

 

[Iamnotarabot]

the Internet hadn't been invented yet, so there was no medium for butt hurt geeks to vent their rage

Should we stop criticizing movies online then? Because the actors may be able to read it or to see how many people didnt like the role they played?

Or ar you simply against the harassement that actors(and any person on the internet) can face in their "personnal space" online? (mail, social media accounts, etc...)

 

[Autistamatic]

I can't speak for Rich, but I know myself that I am happy for people to express their views, but it's unacceptable to personally attack actors over the roles they play. The actor performs a role which is written for them and further shaped by the director, the editor and post production. In the case of Ahmed Best, for example, much of his acting was masked by CGI
.
I'll happily engage with anyone to discuss a movie we've both seen, but I don't accept that there can be any such thing as objectivity when it comes to art. Art is ALL subjective. There's much art & media in this world that comes across as crude, derivative or just worthless to me, but it's enjoyed by millions, even billions of people in some cases. Their art is my garbage and vice versa.

 

[Iamnotarabot]

but I don't accept that there can be any such thing as objectivity when it comes to art.

There is, respecting the core of the material you use, continuity within your own movie, inconsistency ( and I am not talking about lack of realism),you have to respect some of this objectivly.
Then you can argue that not following previously established things ( even within your own movie) didnt bother you, but this is when your own subjectivity kicks in, the mistake that you can objectivly observe is already made, some people hated it, some liked it, some didnt care, the mistake is still there, objectivly.

 

[Autistamatic]

Lack of continuity or consistency is not a fault in everyone's eyes. Some people like a change of pace, others will ignore inconsistencies when they make for a more enjoyable or cogent story.
I didn't think TLJ was a great Star Wars movie. There are plenty of faults I can find with it, but I didn't sit in the cinema asking myself why I wasted my money. I enjoyed it but I was also somewhat disappointed by it.
What annoys me no end is people demolishing movies, citing their opinions as unassailable fact, when clearly other people think differently. If somebody told me TLJ was the best movie ever I'd have as much to discuss with them as if they said it was the worst movie ever, but the moment they start using language like "SJW" or criticising it for having women in heroic roles or the balance of different (human) races then I lose interest. That's not movie discussion, that's politics.

 

[Iamnotarabot]

That's not movie discussion, that's politics.

Well people in charge of SW at the moment made their work a political statement themselves, you can find all of that online.And many others are doing the same. So they are being criticized by what they bring on the table themselve in the first place, you can't ruin a movie with virtue signaling and not be criticized for it, especially when you advertise yourself that you will do it. I totally agree that a movie like SW shouldnt be politic at all, unfortunatly they did make it political themselves And they are being criticized for it, they deserve it.

Lack of continuity or consistency is not a fault in everyone's eyes

This is precisely what I said, but this is a mistake anyway, objectivly. keep in mind we talk about fiction, this is not all arts that have to follow rules obviously, and it depends mostly on the material, I am not talking about some details like how the bombs drop in the opening scene neither.

I didn't sit in the cinema asking myself why I wasted my money.

I'm glad, I didnt when I watched Venom , I enjoyed it even if I know it's bad, but for me watching TLJ was a torture xD

 

[Autistamatic]

Whilst some may label it political, even it's creators, I would say that the broader mix of characters brings it more up to date with the more diverse society we live in today. The most politically controversial thing in the movie for me was the Canto Bight sequence. That could have been left out entirely and the same message be delivered much more subtly.
I don't hold that there is no place for political or moral lessons in movies, books or TV. There are few stories more politically controversial than, say 1984, Fahrenheit 451 or La Planete des Singes/Planet of the Apes. Where I draw the line is the artwork being labelled as poor art because of that content alone.
Far too many of the online hate mob focus on their outrage at the messages inherent in the movie's subtext, at the expense of the story, characters etc.
Obviously this is not the place to discuss the nature of such political content itself, only it's relevance to the merits of the artworks at hand.

 

[AGXStarseed]

Whilst some may label it political, even it's creators, I would say that the broader mix of characters brings it more up to date with the more diverse society we live in today. The most politically controversial thing in the movie for me was the Canto Bight sequence. That could have been left out entirely and the same message be delivered much more subtly.
I don't hold that there is no place for political or moral lessons in movies, books or TV. There are few stories more politically controversial than, say 1984, Fahrenheit 451 or La Planete des Singes/Planet of the Apes. Where I draw the line is the artwork being labelled as poor art because of that content alone.
Far too many of the online hate mob focus on their outrage at the messages inherent in the movie's subtext, at the expense of the story, characters etc.
Obviously this is not the place to discuss the nature of such political content itself, only it's relevance to the merits of the artworks at hand.

I personally think its less to do with the content and more to do with the 'presentation'. Doctor Who, for instance, has dealt with a lot of real-life issues both in the classic series and new series, but it was done organically and in a way that felt natural - even in the episodes where the issue was at the forefront - such as in the classic series with the Daleks been a metaphor for the Nazis or in new series episodes like Planet of the Ood which dealt with slavery.

In comparison, the newest series' attempts to deal with current issues are done in a way that feels much less organic and instead feels more like its been shoved in your face with no subtlety or tact; this takes away the enjoyment for a lot of people - especially if the presentation only shows one side of an argument instead of been balanced.

 

[Iamnotarabot]

, I would say that the broader mix of characters brings it more up to date with the more diverse society we live in today.

I agree, But they had Finn already to work with and they turned his character arc into a joke to follow another character that was shoved in the movie for the asian market and justified for diversity reasons, and this character absolutly told nothing in the story that was worth, and they created this entiere useless arc in Canto around her aswell, so its all connected as you can see. The worst part of the movie serving the worst character. They could have been left out entierly BOTH ( the character and the arc)

But weirdly enought I think I see the potential of this arc, if done correctly it could have introduced a third faction that actually needs the on going conflict and it could have been connected to Solo,and play a bigger role later . But they failed obviously.

Where I draw the line is the artwork being labelled as poor art because of that content alone.

The thing is its actually the opposite, the political aspect of failed movies is criticized, because the political aspect of it is used by those who created it to protect their creation from any critics, because it holds political values ( you didnt like it because you are "insert any ist-word here)

When you create a great fictionnal unniverse, they will always be moral or political lessons in it, because a fictionnal unniverse feels great when it combine escapism with some degree of relatableness to it so you can actually feel the story and the characters, imagining yourself in this unniverse aswell.

As it is relatable you will be able to extract lessons from the fiction , because you have fictionnal political or human conflict.And they are great lesson because they are eternal, they dont age and most of the time are inspired by older real stories ( I dont know the prequel for instance is just that)

But nowadays it's done the other way around, it is "how can we make a very obvious political statement about a very specific on going debate that will be aged 6 months later?" It ruines the escapism and also add more problems to create a good and belivable fiction.

Like, I dont know, you talked about planet of the apes , well, that's a good example, because basically the entiere plot of the last movie revolves around a bunch of idiot depicted as people of the far right wanted to build a big wall, HUUM I wonder what the reference is?

 

[AGXStarseed]

I agree, But they had Finn already to work with and they turned his character arc into a joke to follow another character that was shoved in the movie for the asian market and justified for diversity reasons, and this character absolutly told nothing in the story that was worth, and they created this entiere useless arc in Canto around her aswell, so its all connected as you can see. The worst part of the movie serving the worst character. They could have been left out entierly BOTH ( the character and the arc)

But weirdly enought I think I see the potential of this arc, if done correctly it could have introduced a third faction that actually needs the on going conflict and it could have been connected to Solo,and play a bigger role later . But they failed obviously.


The thing is its actually the opposite, the political aspect of failed movies is criticized, because the political aspect of it is used by those who created it to protect their creation from any critics, because it holds political values ( you didnt like it because you are "insert any ist-word here)

When you create a great fictionnal unniverse, they will always be moral or political lessons in it, because a fictionnal unniverse feels great when it combine escapism with some degree of relatableness to it so you can actually feel the story and the characters, imagining yourself in this unniverse aswell.

As it is relatable you will be able to extract lessons from the fiction , because you have fictionnal political or human conflict.And they are great lesson because they are eternal, they dont age and most of the time are inspired by older real stories ( I dont know the prequel for instance is just that)

But nowadays it's done the other way around, it is "how can we make a very obvious political statement about a very specific on going debate that will be aged 6 months later?" It ruines the escapism and also add more problems to create a good and belivable fiction.

Like, I dont know, you talked about planet of the apes , well, that's a good example, because basically the entiere plot of the last movie revolves around a bunch of idiot depicted as people of the far right wanted to build a big wall, HUUM I wonder what the reference is?

Very true. It seems a lot of people who make movies and TV shows nowadays seem to forgotten the old adage of "Show, don't tell".