The most pointless film character?

[Ian974]

Inspired by watching men in black 2 the other week, what is the film character you would nominate as the most pointless ever created?
Johnny Knoxvilles alien character gets my vote: added nothing at all to the storyline, and had a couple of terrible jokes and that was about it as far as I could tell.

Who would you nominate that there was absolutely no need to be included in a film?

[The Hypno-Toad]

The dog in Marley & Me. As the whole movie was really about Aniston & Wilsons wonderful life and how fking smug they were, the pooch barely mattered.

(A journalist who writes a column about a fking dog that does nothing anything other dog doesn't do and yet somehow he earns about the same money as Clarkson for it. His house has stables for fks sake. I still can't believe I lost two hours of my life to that st. )

Edited by The Hypno-Toad on Thursday 25th November 13:01

[Sheets Tabuer]

Jarjar Binks

Edited by Sheets Tabuer on Thursday 25th November 13:07

[TheEnd]

JarJar Binks.

[durbster]

I saw Mars Attacks recently and it's quite obvious how Danny Devito adds absolutely nothing to the film, despite his efforts. Actually that whole film was littered with big names for no apparent reason.

And how about Rachel Weisz in Enemy at the Gates. Would have been a much better film if they hadn't bothered with the love triangle element.

[Zod]

Jar Jar Binks definitely. The character is of no relevance to the plot. It is even clearer in the Lego Star Wars games (that I play on the Wii with my four and a half year old son). At least in the game you can slice him up with a light sabre.

[Tsippy]

Zod said:

Jar Jar Binks definitely. The character is of no relevance to the plot. It is even clearer in the Lego Star Wars games (that I play on the Wii with my four and a half year old son). At least in the game you can slice him up with a light sabre.

Gooooooooooooooooooooooood...... I can feel your anger........

[Marf]

Sheets Tabuer said:

Jarjar Binks

Edited by Sheets Tabuer on Thursday 25th November 13:07

TheEnd said:

JarJar Binks.

Meesa agree.


Sorry

[Eric Mc]

Another vote for Mr Binks. A pointless character in a poor movie.

[markh1973]

Zod said:

Jar Jar Binks definitely. The character is of no relevance to the plot. It is even clearer in the Lego Star Wars games (that I play on the Wii with my four and a half year old son). At least in the game you can slice him up with a light sabre.

Slicing him in pieces is so satisfying.

[Zod]

Tsippy said:

Zod said:

Jar Jar Binks definitely. The character is of no relevance to the plot. It is even clearer in the Lego Star Wars games (that I play on the Wii with my four and a half year old son). At least in the game you can slice him up with a light sabre.

Gooooooooooooooooooooooood...... I can feel your anger........

that's another thing about that game: it is much more rewarding to play as a dark force character. Anything a good force character can do, a dark force character can also, but there are plaenty of things a dark force character can do and places he can get to that a good foce character cannot. My son therefore identifies with Darth Vader much more than Luke Sywalker.

[dreamz]

lord of the rings - the eye

wtf does it do all film?! it doesnt even blink.

[durbster]

Disagree about Jar Jar Binks since he did have a point in the films: he was supposed to be the comic relief.

However, Lucas is clearly too stupid to realise the comic relief character is meant to be funny.

[Zod]

dreamz said:

lord of the rings - the eye

wtf does it do all film?! it doesnt even blink.

I think you've missed the point there. The eye is the physical manifestation of Sauron, the controlling force behind the forces of Mordor. Hence when his ring is destroyed, he is destroyed and all he has created with his power is destroyed.

[Alfa numeric]

Any character in Sex and the City. If you'd had a voiceover blowing a rasberry whilst loads of posh frocks were wheeled in a Generation Game style across the screen you would probably have ended up with a better movie.

This also has the added benefit of not having to look at SJP.

[Zod]

durbster said:

Disagree about Jar Jar Binks since he did have a point in the films: he was supposed to be the comic relief.

However, Lucas is clearly too stupid to realise the comic relief character is meant to be funny.

They had C3P0 and R2D2 in the prequels too, so no need for a ridiculous gay black person stereotype disguised as a floppy-eared alien.

[shirt]

durbster said:

And how about Rachel Weisz in Enemy at the Gates. Would have been a much better film if they hadn't bothered with the love triangle element.

there are loads of films that would benefit from the removal of the love story.

[Zod]

shirt said:

durbster said:

And how about Rachel Weisz in Enemy at the Gates. Would have been a much better film if they hadn't bothered with the love triangle element.

there are loads of films that would benefit from the removal of the love story.

No film would benefit from the removal of Rachel Weisz. Indeed, in some films, she is the sole redeeming feature.

[Ian974]

Why did I know that Jar Jar would be in here?
As much as he is a very stupid character, (it's a long time since I've seen the film) does he not introudce then to the folk in the underwater city, therefore not completely pointless?
They could have done a much better character, but they would have needed someone(or something)?

[dreamz]

Zod said:

dreamz said:

lord of the rings - the eye

wtf does it do all film?! it doesnt even blink.

I think you've missed the point there. The eye is the physical manifestation of Sauron, the controlling force behind the forces of Mordor. Hence when his ring is destroyed, he is destroyed and all he has created with his power is destroyed.

really?!

damn now i get the films!!!

• just kidding.

pointless charachter - in the home alones - the wierd adults that save him