similarities between Jar Jar and Willie Scott?

I love TOD, although Willie Scott gets a lot of flack for screaming at everything, causing some fans on message boards to dislike her. She is really the Jar Jar of the Indy world.

I like how in the Indiana Jones films, each main female is tottaly different in character. Who do you think is more his type? I'm guessing Marion.
 

TombReader

New member
'She is really the Jar Jar of the Indy world.'

If by that you mean that she fits the mythological motif of the trickster,then you may on to something.
 

Andy Jones

New member
She is really the Jar Jar of the Indy world.

I didn't mind her that much, though she is my least favourite Indy girl from the movies.

She she does seem to get a similar reaction to Jar Jar from fans and also film magazines.
 
They're both clumsy.

Willie lost Indy's gun in a gun fight.

Jar Jar:"Yud say boom de gasser, den crashin der bosses heyblibber, den banished."

You could say Willie was "banished" by Boss Lao Che from Club Obi Wan...
 

Johnb02

New member
In my opinion, Willie has more personality then Marion and Elsa.


Never had a problem with Jar Jar. He's pretty cool I think.

I disagree. Willie is a bit clumsy, but she is the hottest Indy girl. And, Jar Jar does not have as big a role as Willie in any of the movies. So, you all are very wrong, according to me.
Good day, gentlemen.
 
Johnb02 said:
In my opinion, Willie has more personality then Marion and Elsa.
After watching Raiders of the Lost Ark once again, I must confess Marion hasn't aged well.

In an evolving culture of empowered women Marion couldn't hold a flickering torch to the ideals embodied by the character of Willie Scott.

Willie has it all: the Disney Channel brassy-ness and "oh no you di-n't" bravado coupled with muscular Nickelodeon powered "I just got slimed" lungs!

It was while I watched the Willie Scott inspired liberated and empowered 30 year old Georgetown student Sandra Fluke bravely declare: "I WANT YOU...to pay so I don't have any children while I rutt like a desperate animal" that I knew you were right about Willie Scott.

She has proven a timeless example of the hopes and dreams of all women from pampered preeteens to putrid primping paternal protesting prehistoric patriarchs.

Hell I don't want either of them to have children!
...and you thought Mutt was bad!

Marion...pfft! what a joke!

Johnb02 said:
Never had a problem with Jar Jar. He's pretty cool I think.
That sums it up...

Jar Jar all times have meesa laffin an smilin. How Jar Jar steps in doo doo put meesa ona floor rollin!(y)

Johnb02 said:
I disagree. Willie is a bit clumsy, but she is the hottest Indy girl. And, Jar Jar does not have as big a role as Willie in any of the movies. So, you all are very wrong, according to me. Good day, gentlemen.
All cogent points and deductions laddie!
 
Last edited:

JediJones

Active member
I always hear a lot of bashing of Willie by liberal feminist types I meet. It's annoying how these people hold characters up to a litmus test as to whether they promote their particular ideology or not. They don't judge a film any differently from some Christian groups who will disapprove of a film because of its sex, violence, etc. They don't judge films or characters on their own merits, just on whether they represent their particular belief system. Hence you're always going to see a lot of bashing of Willie from magazines and critics, because you can't find a more liberal crowd than journalists. The fact is there are women who would act just like Willie if they went on an Indiana Jones adventure and there are women who would act like Marion. Although I'd have to say more of the Willie type. Not many women could drink a giant sherpa under the table.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Willie was a product of 1930s screwball comedies. She has her place in Indy's universe.

JarJar was a product of George's failing mind. He has no place anywhere near the Star Wars universe.
 
JediJones said:
I always hear a lot of bashing of Willie by liberal feminist types I meet. It's annoying how these people hold characters up to a litmus test as to whether they promote their particular ideology or not. They don't judge a film any differently from some Christian groups who will disapprove of a film because of its sex, violence, etc. They don't judge films or characters on their own merits, just on whether they represent their particular belief system. Hence you're always going to see a lot of bashing of Willie from magazines and critics, because you can't find a more liberal crowd than journalists. The fact is there are women who would act just like Willie if they went on an Indiana Jones adventure and there are women who would act like Marion. Although I'd have to say more of the Willie type. Not many women could drink a giant sherpa under the table.

My heart goes out to you, that you rub elbows with so many liberal feminists in your daily life but less so that you seemingly engage them in conversations regarding, (of ALL subjects) Willie Scott!

You must have been a REAL son of a b!itch in your past life...maybe you were Willie Scott!

What I don't understand is how you can be annoyed by someone making judgements of a films merits based on their particular belief system...a judgement is an opinion after all. What are you a sadist? Are you out preaching the message of Willie Scott to the masses to convert them from their liberal feminist ways?

The fact is the character of Willie, while not objectionably conceived, is poorly written and performed worse.

If so, the only "reason" you've given is a poorly considered view that women (more than not in your experience) would act like Willie.

Well you certainly live in a hell of your own making...get out of there! If I lived with a nasty thankless shrew who hit me after I saved her syphilitic carcass I would ditch the b!tch.

I think syphilitic is right, to justify her thought process her brain must have been tunneled by spirochetes deeper and wider than the Pancot mines. Reason falling perilously between hemispheres careening off grey matter and losing cohesion until they are nothing more than the shrieks of a vacuous soul sucking mind.

6513048825_9ce60893f5.jpg

Now THAT's fun.

The perils of being a cocksure liberal feminist who lies down with every Lao Dick and Henry...maybe a dash of Christian Values might have helped the poor soul.

Fact is Willie is one of those liberal feminists you so despise, spreading her brand of bipolar poison all over an Indiana Jones movie where the writers and "actress" don't have the talent to make any of it entertaining.

The silly-hilarities between Willie and Jar Jar are many, for this post it would be that the character was unnecessary and redundant.

Star Wars already had "comic relief" in the form of 3PO and Temple had Shorty, (for what THAT's worth).
Jar Jars absence would not preclude finding otah gunga:)sick: )...they might just have reasonably been chased under water by the droid army.

But then, who would the politicians in thier infinte wisdom appoint to hand over a thousand year democracy facilitating the systematic slaughter of life forms across the galaxy?

Whoopsa! Mesa kicked ofo genoside...and cracked a nail!
 
Last edited:

JediJones

Active member
Willie isn't there to be admired or be a role model. She's there to cause dramatic conflict and comedic contrast with Indy. She's a hot, annoying, highly emotional woman, who do exist in real life. As an audience member, I'm not annoyed by her, I'm amused by how she annoys Indy. I like that Indy was more challenged in this film by having people he had to protect who couldn't always help defend him.

Kate Capshaw's performance is fantastic. She had a perfect sense of this character and carried it consistently throughout the film. She pulled off dialogue that added depth to her like her story about her uncle very well. She expressed every emotion from fear to disgust to amusement to anger to relief to pleasure very believably with great energy and the right kind of playful, fun quality for this film. Her screams of terror were strong, convincing and varied enough in pitch and volume that they didn't get repetitive. And she had a fantastic sense of comic timing.

I disagree fundamentally with anyone who judges a film based on political content such as how a certain race, religion or gender was portrayed. Those things have nothing to do with whether a story works or not. It's an unfair standard to judge a film by.
 
If Willie wasn't there it wouldn't have mattered!

Swap the names and you've got a love letter to Jar Jar that a few milling around would swoon to...and a LFL Public Press Release fit for a mass suicide.

Ahmad Best's performance is fantastic. He had a perfect sense of this character and carried it consistently throughout the film. He pulled off dialogue that added depth to him like his story about being banned very well. He expressed every emotion from fear to disgust to amusement to anger to relief to pleasure very believably with great energy and the right kind of playful, fun quality for this film. His screams of terror were strong, convincing and varied enough in pitch and volume that they didn't get repetitive. And he had a fantastic sense of comic timing.

Wow, like it was penned by George Lucas himself!

78035f83-a41d-4cc6-b07a-c1d79c488602.jpg


I disagree with anyone who judges a film based on political content such as how a certain race, religion or gender was portrayed. But leading with and equating that to Christian groups who will disapprove of a film because of its sex, violence, etc. is deluded.
 

Toht's Arm

Active member
JediJones said:
I disagree fundamentally with anyone who judges a film based on political content such as how a certain race, religion or gender was portrayed. Those things have nothing to do with whether a story works or not. It's an unfair standard to judge a film by.

It's appropriate if it's a film about race, gender or religious relations, surely?

And even if it's merely a piece of innocent escapism, films don't exist in a vacuum. Movies can have a greater or lesser impact depending on the time of their release, the political climate, whether or not they touch on contemporary issues. And, as time passes, looking back on them as a historical document is just as interesting. As long as the person doing the critiquing is clear about the nature and background of their perspective, I say there's nothing wrong with that at all. Freudian, postmodern, feminist, and Frankfurt school critical theories (and many others) are all interesting takes on popular culture like movies.
 

JediJones

Active member
Note my use of the term "judge." That's not the same as analyze for historical purposes or whatever. Judging is about deciding what you think is good or bad. To use politics or ideology as a basis for judging art does a disservice to art. Doing that prevents a critic from being objective. What makes a movie or other form of art good is not what it is about, but how it is about it.

I only bring this up here because much of the criticism of TOD is of this wrongheaded nature. It criticizes the portrayal of women, the portrayal of the Indian culture, etc. And all that criticism is garbage that isn't worth warm spit and has nothing to do with whether or not the movie is good as far as I'm concerned.
 
They're poster children for hate!

When people want to point to what they don't like about Temple Willie invariably gets the finger...she still makes the lists.

And...

Jar Jar is the Phantom Antonym...he's in your face.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
WilliamBoyd8 said:
I always thought that this lady in the 1937 film "Lost Horizon" looked familiar:


Proof of reincarnation!

:)

Isabel Jewell?

MV5BMTU1NDgzMDU3N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNTcwODY5Nw@@._V1._SY314_CR19,0,214,314_.jpg


Isabel Jewell, like other actresses in Hollywood in the 1930's, suffered from chronic typecasting. The diminutive, platinum-haired doctor's daughter seemed to be forever playing hardboiled, tough-talking broads: gangster's molls, dumb blondes, prostitutes and, of course, poor 'white trash' Emmy Slattery in Gone with the Wind (1939).

While stardom eluded her for the most part, she nonetheless remained a busy supporting actress with an impressive array of A-budget films to her credit. Signed as an MGM contract player, she reputedly earned up to $3,000 a week - a small fortune at the time. Isabell was educated at Hamilton College in Kentucky. After years in stock companies (including an 87-week stint in Lincoln, Nebraska), she hit the big time after getting a part on Broadway in 'Up Pops the Devil' in 1930. With just three hours of rehearsal time, she delivered her performance to great critical acclaim and had even better reviews as a fast-talking telephone operator in 'Blessed Event'. She reprised this role in Hollywood in 1932 and her movie career was effectively launched. While her parts were often small, they could also be memorable: for example, Ceiling Zero (1936), Marked Woman (1937), Lost Horizon (1937) and a poignant against-type performance as an ill-fated seamstress on her way to the guillotine in A Tale of Two Cities (1935).

In the 1940's and 50's, her roles diminished from small to bits to uncredited and she fell on hard times: in 1959, she got into trouble with the law in Las Vegas for passing bad cheques, and, two years later, spent five days in jail for drunk driving. She was found dead in her home in April 1972, aged just 64. One of her two former husbands was writer, producer and director Owen Crump (1903-1998). A lasting memory of Isabell Jewell is her star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

http://uk.imdb.com/name/nm0422436/bio

She does seem a very likely candidate!
 
Top