Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Star Wars: AOTC Trailer on Monster Inc

CmdrTaco posted about 13 years ago | from the get-it-on dept.

Star Wars Prequels 327

FortKnox writes " has officially announced that Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones 'teaser' trailer will appear at the head of the new movie, Monsters, Inc. Other reports have the full trailer on Harry Potter, but this is still speculation. Ep-I DVD owners should be able to view the trailers on once Monsters, Inc. hits theaters." Good thing I'm planning on seeing both of those movies anyway.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fuck george lucas (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2493562)

howard the duck for ever!

Must be good (2)

MxTxL (307166) | about 13 years ago | (#2493568)

That Rowling guy must feel pretty good with the success of his books... in anticipation of the movie, my girlfriend and I have tried to read the Harry potter books, but they are not to be found in the library unless you reserve them, and they are completely unavailable in used book stores. I don't think i want to pay retail price for them (usually like $15) so i guess i'll just have to wait for the hype to die down.

Re:Must be good (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2493575)

Jesus ass tits christ you are cheap.

Re:Must be good (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2493584)

That Rowling "Guy" must be pretty impressed that people always assume she's a guy.

Re:Must be good (1)

groove10 (266295) | about 13 years ago | (#2493592)

I thought J.K. Rowling was a woman!

Re:Must be good (2)

MxTxL (307166) | about 13 years ago | (#2493599)

S/he could well be.... i was under the impression it was a guy, but if you thought so, who knows?? :)

Rowling, Clones Trailer (3, Interesting)

Robotech_Master (14247) | about 13 years ago | (#2493720)

Well, that's what the publisher wanted you to think. Listen to some of the Rowling audio interviews from NPR [] 's archive; she says that the publisher wanted to publish her as J.K. Rowling instead of Joanne K. Rowling, out of fear that little boys would be turned off of a book written by a girl (ick, cooties!). As it turns out, they didn't need to worry; it's now well-known she's female (except on Slashdot, apparently) and it hasn't dampened the books' popularity one whit.

To avoid the dreaded Off-Topic markdown, let me just mention that, as one of the DVD-owners, I have access to the Star Wars site; they're still hyping November 9th as far as I know. For the moment, they have what can only be described as a trailer for the trailer posted--a 7-meg Quicktime slideshow called "Choices" that shows images and posits such gripping questions as "What is the cost of failure?" and, my favorite, "What do droids worry about?"

Since Quicktimes can easily be downloaded, I expect you could find it on Gnutella by now. It's not all that great, but at least it's something.

Re:Must be good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2493611)

yeag, she is a woman, but a rather ugly one .. but well she's rich :)

Re:Must be good (1)

ErikZ (55491) | about 13 years ago | (#2493603)

Huh? The paperbacks are 7 or 8$. The local Barnes and Noble were giving 20% off also.

You can do more than just sit around and drink coffee in a bookstore these days.

Re:Must be good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2493604)

Rowling is a she and paperback books (everything but azkaban) are 7 or 8 dollars.

Re:Must be good (5, Funny)

interiot (50685) | about 13 years ago | (#2493610)

"that Rowling guy [] ", ala google's image search.

Re:Must be good (2)

MxTxL (307166) | about 13 years ago | (#2493646)

Lol, i stand corrected....

I don't see the problem (1)

bowb (209411) | about 13 years ago | (#2493651)

Neither you nor your girlfriend can reserve them why?

Rowling is a lady -nt- (2)

Captain_Frisk (248297) | about 13 years ago | (#2493686)

nt means no text

i love you (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2493571)

i love you so much that it hurts

please marry me

Re:i love you (-1)

Trollificus (253741) | about 13 years ago | (#2493700)

Yes! Oh, yes! I will marry you!

Taste in Movies (2, Funny)

Ctrl-Z (28806) | about 13 years ago | (#2493580)

"Good thing I'm planning on seeing both of [Harry Potter and Monsters, Inc.] anyway."

Sheesh. CmdrTaco has a strange definition of "Good Things"[tm].

More Info (2, Informative)

robbyjo (315601) | about 13 years ago | (#2493586)

Check the official homepage [] .

And check the parody site [] as well... :-)

Re:More Info (1)

Grape Shasta (176655) | about 13 years ago | (#2493656)

That "official homepage" looks extremely unofficial. But it has good news... Jar Jar will only make a brief appearance! Maybe I won't hate this movie after all.

huh? (1, Troll)

rppp01 (236599) | about 13 years ago | (#2493588)

Attack of the Clones? One of the things I loved about the star wars movies as a kid was the cool titles given. Empire Strikes Back. A New Hope. Phantom Menace was pretty good. But Attack of the Clones? Lucas is trying to make me a non sci fi fan, isn't he?

Well, I guess I could live with it, if all the clones were of Natalie Portman :-)

Re:huh? (2, Funny)

|guillaume| (151395) | about 13 years ago | (#2493609)

Well, I guess I could live with it, if all the clones were of Natalie Portman :-)

I guess you would then have a Beowulf Cluster of Natalie Portman... mmm...

Re:huh? (1)

ekrout (139379) | about 13 years ago | (#2493613)

I'd say that the "cool titles" you mention aren't that spectacular at all, really. "Attack of the Clones" is just another lackluster title, IMHO.

Re:huh? (1)

rppp01 (236599) | about 13 years ago | (#2493625)

The more I think about it, the more I agree with you.

Damn. A kid movie isn't the same when you are an adult.

Re:huh? (1)

snoozerdss (303165) | about 13 years ago | (#2493626)

If you remember in a New Hope (I think a new hope anyways it's been a while) They mention the "clone wars" that happened years before. I'm assuming this is what the title is addressing.

Re:huh? (2)

Lxy (80823) | about 13 years ago | (#2493639)

One of two possibilities. A) Lucas has lost his mind, B) he's waiting til the very last second to change the title. He did this in a few other Star Wars movies (possibly all) so that he could sue the sh*t out of people selling "official" Attack of the Clones merchandise. Anyway, I guess I have a good reaosn to see Monsters Inc. now (or at least the preveiews) :-).

Re:huh? (1)

AtaruMoroboshi (522293) | about 13 years ago | (#2493710)

Is "Attack of the Clones" any less cheesy than "Empire Strikes Back"? Or "The Phantom Menace"?

At first, The Phantom Menace sounded silly to me, but now it works. He's intentionally evoking the feel of old serials.

(Not that I liked Ep 1, it was so bad, it hurt.)

Anyhow, "Attack of the Clones" sounds good enough to me.

Re:huh? (2)

Lxy (80823) | about 13 years ago | (#2493768)

Is there any indication (I mean George Lucas certified) on what the true nature of the clone wars is? In A New Hope, the clone wars are briefly mentioned. As I recall that's the only mention of them. In the tense they're used, we assume that it's a pivotal point, and it's pretty much guaranteed (and expected) that EP2 or Ep3 will be about the clone wars.

Anyway, my point in all this rambling is whether or not anyone knows anything about the true nature of the clone wars. Is it true "clones" of something? Is it a band of dark side rebels that ends up seducing Anakin in some way? (my guess). "Attack of the clones" just sounds a little misleading. Maybe it's just a psychological thing, like "attack of the clowns" or "send in the clowns" or something.

Re:huh? (2)

Leven Valera (127099) | about 13 years ago | (#2493746)

I'm willing to bet karma that the phrase "Attack of the Clones" will not appear anywhere in the trailer. :)

Re:huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2493681)

> Well, I guess I could live with it, if all the clones were of Natalie Portman :-)

Like they could afford all those grits.

Re:huh? (2)

Chundra (189402) | about 13 years ago | (#2493721)

Attack of the Clones conjures up images of massive armies of robots marching across the landscape for as far as you can see. Is it just me or is this stuff getting a little old?

I propose that Lucas just makes a 2-3 hour movie of "breathtaking" effects like marching clones beating the crap out of each other until they explode. Once he gets that out of his system the remaining Star Wars movies could then focus primarily on something important...

like, oh...say... a decent story.

Or at the very least Natalie Portman disrobed, flaunting 16 luscious blue breasts.

Re:huh? (4, Interesting)

SirSlud (67381) | about 13 years ago | (#2493726)

Return of the Jedi?
The Empire Strikes Back?

They are cool names only because you associate them with cool movies. They sound 'retro'. Today, audiences are very wary, if receptive at all, of 'camp' and in general, the 'pulpy' style. Lucas, if anything, is not bowing down to current trends in keeping the names of the movies in line with the original campy names. Unfortunately, I thnk audiences are far too cynical and pessimmistic to accept such campy names anymore, as evidenced by the furor over the name "Attack of the Clones". Personally, I think the more money you spend on something, the less likely people are going to accept camp as entertainment, especially since camp is one of the cheapest styles to infuse into movie productions. (Indeed, being 'campy' is partly defined as appearing articicial; thus, your sets/titling/acting need not be juiced for every possible production dollar.)

The media/advertising pipelines are more clogged than ever, and since camp is more often a tool used by lower budget productions (for obvious reasons), people are not hearing of movies that utilize camp very much, and consequently are not demanding it or appreciating it unless its associated with a previously prooven franchise (ie, Star Wars, Batman, Star Trek)

At least, thats my take on it.


A Serious Question (4, Interesting)

ekrout (139379) | about 13 years ago | (#2493591)

Am I the only one who HASN'T read the Harry Potter books? I don't mean to sound like an arrogant prick (although I really am), but weren't these books written for little kids? I mean, sure, I enjoyed Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers and all when I was younger, but these days I barely watch any TV. So, my question is "What's the appeal of these childish stories to grown, sophisticated adults?".


Re:A Serious Question (2)

crow (16139) | about 13 years ago | (#2493636)

My wife has been reading the Harry Potter series out loud to me. She really should do books on tape--she does all the different voices. Anyway, while the books are written at a level that makes them accessible to kids, the stories certainly hold interest for adults.

The Harry Potter books are the story of a kid growing up, a series of mystery-adventure stories, and a story of fantasy magic.

Re:A Serious Question (5, Insightful)

Stevis (69064) | about 13 years ago | (#2493645)

They're not childish stories. I had much the same opinion, but my wife, who is a children's literature buff, knew the difference--and convinced me to read them. At the end of Goblet of Fire, I had much the same ominous feeling that I had at the end of Empire Strikes don't know where the "good guys" are going from here.

The novels are dealing with the kids growing into adults, something that is universal. It is dealing with the kids as they learn about and define ourselves, and talks about what makes us who we are and how we face choices between good and evil.

In addition, from a storytelling side, JK Rowling has her arc plotted out and knows where she's going--while it's not as tight as Straczynski does things and some inconsistencies slip through, she's not pulling things out of her hindquarters as she goes along. Try reading book one; you'll like it. That's all I can say. Stevis

Try them (3, Interesting)

BillyGoatThree (324006) | about 13 years ago | (#2493650)

The first book is pretty light and features HP as an 11 year old boy. But each subsequent book is darker as Harry gets older (one year per book). The first time I read the 4th book (which I'm currently re-reading in anticipation of the movie and 5th book) I snuck it into my cubicle and work and spent the entire day reading it. It's that gripping.

So no, they aren't for "little kids". They are for children of various ages. Just like the Narnia and Alice books.

Re:A Serious Question (3, Interesting)

mikester911 (223866) | about 13 years ago | (#2493654)

So, my question is "What's the appeal of these childish stories to grown, sophisticated adults?".

I'm sorry....were you talking about Harry Potter here, or Star Wars?

I hated Phantom Menance - not just because it was a kid's movie, but because it forced me to realize, as a 28 year old, that the first three weren't amazing films in my mind because they were amazing films, but because I saw them when I was in grade school.

Attack of the Clones should refer to how Lucas recycled his own story ideas in Phantom Menace.

I will probably go see Ep. 2, but I will hate myself for doing it.

My impressions... (1)

H0NGK0NGPH00EY (210370) | about 13 years ago | (#2493657)

I haven't read them either, so you're certainly not the only one who hasn't read them.

As far as the appeal, I may be totally wrong here, but as far as I can tell, the books are written more toward an adult audience. The latest book in the series, Goblet of Fire, is 734 pages! I don't know about you, but as a kid, I never read any 734 page hardback novels. I think the main appeal for the kids is that the main character is a kid, not that the story content is childish.

That's what I think anyway.

Ever Read The Hobbit? (1) (71379) | about 13 years ago | (#2493660)

If you've ever read The Hobbit, you were reading a book intended for a younger audience. Yes, it's geared toward children, but it contains themes that adults can appreciate and enjoy.

Supposedly, the same thing can be said for the Harry Potter books, but I haven't read them yet.

Re:A Serious Question (1)

ErikZ (55491) | about 13 years ago | (#2493665)

If you spend your time with grown, sophisticated adults, 99% of the entertainment out there is beneath you.

Go pick up "The Golden Compass" and read it. You'll find this book in the childrens section.

BTW, I hated the first Harry Potter book. It was childish and boring. But after reading the HUGE response on slashdot after the forth book won a Hugo, I decided to give it another chance. I'm glad I did.

C.S.Lewis, Lewis Carrol, etc (2)

Kris Warkentin (15136) | about 13 years ago | (#2493689)

Lots of children's books are excellent reading. "The Chronicles of Narnia" and "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" are great examples

Re:C.S.Lewis, Lewis Carrol, etc (1)

Flower (31351) | about 13 years ago | (#2493755)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned 'A Wrinkle in Time.' by Madeleine L'Engle. I recently saw that it has been made into a mini-series set to air in 2002.

Re:A Serious Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2493694)

Nope, yer not alone, I also have absolutely no interest in reading them. Of course, I can't read, maybe that's a side effect of me being blind, mute quadrapelegic?

Of course, I should also tell you now that I'm a chronic liar.

-- gid

Re:A Serious Question (1)

ijx (66809) | about 13 years ago | (#2493707)

See, I have to agree here.

A good friend of mine keeps on trying to get me to read the series, but I'm still very leery about the whole thing...

The story of my first impression regarding Harry Potter is thus:

The first HP book came out while I was attending my first year at college. At the same time, Amazon started up that feature [] that allows users to see what the most popular books at a given organization are. On a lark, I checked out my school's faves, and Harry Potter, classified as a children's book, came in at #1. That scared the crap out of me.

I think that, as a result of this 'trauma', it will be many years before I could conceivably consider reading an HP book.

Re:A Serious Question (-1)

Trollificus (253741) | about 13 years ago | (#2493709)

Nah, you're not an arrogant prick.
I've never read any of the Harry Potter books. And I don't watch tv either.
So, maybe I'm just an arrogant prick too. ;)

Re:A Serious Question (1)

dpease (470976) | about 13 years ago | (#2493729)

Good question, and one that I had before I tried them out earlier this month. The GF wouldn't stop pushing them.

Here is my slightly off-topic Harry Potter series review.

First of all, what is the difference between a kid's book an an adult book? Generally, theme and realism--most "adult books" aren't about stuff like magic. And, to be sure, most of them aren't about kids, either. Bad things happen to people in adult books to a much greater degree than bad things happen in children's books.

Sure, HP is about magic, which is kind of goofy, but it's really brought off well. A lot of thought has gone into the whole backstory about how magic can exist in the modern world, and the relationship between the magical and non-magical realms.

HP isn't really sugar-coated. It's not hard-boiled by any stretch of the imagination, but good people get hurt and even die.

Now, let's talk about what is good in the series. Lots of series such as this one keep introducing new things in each book, to the point where you say "hmm, why didn't I read about that last book?" In other words, the authors are cheating by changing the world they created in the first book. I don't get much of a sense of that with this series. Rowling has gone out of her way to create this world, and she only has to tweak it slightly each book, rather than the wholesale changes other authors bust out.

The books are really well-written. They are easy to read and flow smoothly. I get the impression from some literary snobs that a book needs to be dense and hard to read to be good. I don't agree. It took me about a month to make it through McKillip's Riddle-Master Trilogy [] before I started Potter. It took two weeks to get through all four books in the HP series. They were both good reads, but I didn't mind the simpler vocabulary that Rowling uses one bit. It's no "See Dick Run".

Negatives: Some of the phrases Rowling comes up with are a bit precious for me (and all the "Muggle Clubs" sprouting up like weeds aren't helping. I'm not a Harry Potter cultist, and I'd rather not be associated with people who look at these books as a life changing experience). The series started kind of slowly. Books 5-7 haven't been written yet. :)

Overall, these books are an escape. If everything you read has to have deeper meaning, by all means avoid this series. But if you're just looking for a fun, well-written read, it's honestly going to be tough to do much better.

Good luck.

Re:A Serious Question (1)

bryanbrunton (262081) | about 13 years ago | (#2493751)

I too am amazed that adults find these books good reading. As a big fantasy book collector, I glanced at one of these books to see if it might appeal to me. The first words of text I saw were:

"Urrg, Troll boogers."

I didn't read any further.

Re:A Serious Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2493759)

I don't think it's fair to compare Rowling's books to childrens' TV shows. The Potter series is strangely reminiscent to other children's classics such as Narnia (Lewis), LoTR (Tolkein) & Wonderland (Carrol?), in how the author creates their world and characters that we as children (and even as adults) can grow attatched to. Watching Mr. Rogers reruns OTOH give me fits. They don't provide any of the "magic" that those books give. (Sorry, went a little OT)

Re:A Serious Question (3, Interesting)

Robotech_Master (14247) | about 13 years ago | (#2493771)

There's a world of difference between "written for little kids" and "written down to little kids."

You could even say there's a sort of Star Wars analogy in the books (just to keep this vaguely topical to the thread). The first two are sort of light, kind of like the first Star Wars movie...but by the time you read the third and fourth, you're getting into definite Empire Strikes Back territory. Rowling pulls no punches. The villains are black and foul, not simply "misunderstood"; they're selfish and megalomaniacal but not the self-described "evil" (as in "God, I love being evil") of many down-written kids' shows and books. People die--and worse than die. There is very little sappy moralizing or sermonizing, and what there is flows naturally from the book, from adults giving advice to kids that isn't just "do this, don't do that," but gives them credit for being able to think. And the fourth book...well, don't read the first chapter of it in a darkened room, that's all I can say.

I'd recommend buying them without hesitation, but if you're still not sure, all four of the books are available on Gnutella. I'm not ordinarily one to condone piracy without paying--but I'm confident that once you've read them, you'll enjoy them enough that you want to own them.

Correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2493593)

That should read "Owners of the Ep 1 DVD who also own an Intel or compatible PC running a recent version of a Microsoft operating system". The online content is not available otherwise.

Actually (1)

CmdrTroll (412504) | about 13 years ago | (#2493596)

I searched GNUtella [] for "star wars" and the full Ep2 trailer came up. Might be something to take a look at. I will post it on Freenet as soon as it finishes downloading.


Re:Actually (2)

geomcbay (263540) | about 13 years ago | (#2493679)

Be aware that there's a fake fan-trailer or two that have been circulating for months now. What you find on gnutella might not be the real thing.

Of course, then again it might be real -- according to many Internet rumor sites a lot of preview-audiences and movie-house projectionists have seen the new trailer..someone may have cammed it and digitzed it as was done with the Phantom Menace trailer before an official net version was posted.

This is a bad sign (5, Insightful)

crow (16139) | about 13 years ago | (#2493597)

Well, it isn't really news, but this is a clear sign of what audience the movie is targeted at. These are both children's movies. Sure, as far as children's movies go, they have a lot of adult interest; that's what usually makes for a successful children's movie.

Now if they were targeting a more adult crowd, they would be trying to connect to Lord of the Rings.

Of course, it may just be a matter of what big movies are coming out at the right time.

Re:This is a bad sign (2)

Lxy (80823) | about 13 years ago | (#2493663)

I wouldn't be so sure. Star Wars movies have generally been an all-ages type deal (some will argue, but I was 6 or 7 when I started watching them). Lord of the rings: not all-ages. Harry Potter and Monsters, Inc: definitely all-ages. Looking at the new movies coming out, this is probably his best choice.

Re: This is a bad sign (1)

Man of E (531031) | about 13 years ago | (#2493674)

The point of attaching trailers to other movies is to generate traffic both ways. The Star Wars and LOTR demographics are pretty similar, so putting the trailer there wouldn't achieve much - people watching LOTR are likely to see Star Wars anyway, trailer or no. By attaching the trailer to Harry Potter and Monsters Inc., they

- generate more revenue for those movies by selling tickets to people who only care about the trailers, and
- show the new Jar-jar off to kids who then drag their parents off to the Star Wars movie and buy action figures.

From a business perspective, it makes perfect sense.

Re:This is a bad sign (-1)

psylence (87893) | about 13 years ago | (#2493677)

Monsters Inc. seems like it wants to be the huge movie. What marketing dept. wouldn't want the trailer there?

Re:This is a bad sign (2)

Masem (1171) | about 13 years ago | (#2493680)

I know it's redundant, but Lucas has always said that Star Wars is aimed at kids; it's a classic tale of good vs evil when you pull out the SFX and the like. However, regardless of the plot, the Star Wars series has done wonders to push the entire movie industry forward in terms of SFX and sound improvements. So I will be going to see SW 2, despite numerous rumors that Jar-Jar is back, and while I might moan at the story, I expect to be fascinated by the production.

Re:This is a bad sign (1)

JojoLinkyBob (110971) | about 13 years ago | (#2493704)

Hmm, here's food for thought. Maybe Lucas has been targeting the young audience so that as they mature, they will be old enough to appreciate the original Star Wars trilogy, by the time the whole anthology is complete.

Re:This is a bad sign (5, Insightful)

geomcbay (263540) | about 13 years ago | (#2493763)

Its politics and business really.

Monsters, Inc is a Pixar movie. Who sold Pixar to Steve Jobs? George Lucas. There's still pretty strong ties between Pixar and Lucasfilm/ILM, so there you go...

With Harry Potter the connections are (among other things) ILM doing many of the special effects and John Williams doing the score.

LOTR is a different beast...A New Line movie, music by Howard Shore/Enya, WETA doing the special effects...

Hope it's better than the last one (0, Flamebait)

atrowe (209484) | about 13 years ago | (#2493601)

All reports I've read say that Jar-Jar is going to be included.
Your going to hate the movie unless they take that fool out.
Base your movies on cartoonish animated lizards and no one will watch.
Are you listening, Lucas? Slapstick comedy does not
Belong in an epic movie like Star Wars.
To make the movie a success among adults, don't cater to kids.
US moviegoers learned their lesson last time, and won't buy your crap again.

Re:Hope it's better than the last one (1)

Malic (15038) | about 13 years ago | (#2493634)

For Great Justice...

Jar Jar must not die (0)

Aurelfell (520560) | about 13 years ago | (#2493723)

I agree that Jar Jar Binks is the most annoying Star Wars character ever, possibly the most annoying fictional character in history. It's for that reason that he cannot die in Episode II; There's no one worthy of slaying the most annoying character ever. Not Obi-wan, not Jabba the Hutt, not Palpatine, not even Boba Fett, (although Fett is pretty close). No one in Episode II is worthy. Of course, in Episode III . . .

Hrm? (1)

InnereNacht (529021) | about 13 years ago | (#2493602)

"Ep-I DVD owners should be able to view the trailers on once Monsters, Inc. hits theaters."

Did I miss a previous story on this? Do you get a special key or something when you buy episode one so that you can view future trailers before they're allowed out to the general public?

Re:Hrm? (5, Informative)

geomcbay (263540) | about 13 years ago | (#2493691)

You get a special URL that works in conjunction with some proprietary Windows-browser that does some sort of checksum on the DVD-ROM disc (needs to be inserted in your computer's DVD drive).

There's already content on this DVD-ROM only site, still pictures from Episode 2, etc...The few people that have redistributed this content on publically accessible web-sites have, not surprisingly, been spanked by Lucasfilm.

Re:Hrm? (4, Funny)

snookerdoodle (123851) | about 13 years ago | (#2493692)

In a word: Yes. There is also other content on available only to Episode I DVD owners.

Unfortunately (depending on your point of view), I'm not enough of a fan to spend a lot of time on their web site. I watch the movies. I go to bed.

The next day, I watch the Pod Race with my 4 and 6 year old boys. Then I watch the Pod Race with my 4 and 6 year old boys again. Then I watch the Pod Race with my 4 and 6 year old boys again. Then I watch the Pod Race with my 4 and 6 year old boys again.


Re:Hrm? (2, Informative)

count_dooku (448992) | about 13 years ago | (#2493725)

Did I miss a previous story on this? Do you get a special key or something when you buy episode one so that you can view future trailers before they're allowed out to the general public?

Episode I owners have access to exclusive content on When you insert the Ep.1 DVD into a computer (Mac/Windows omly) it installs an Intervideo player. This player allows access to the exclusive content.

They have already posted a still photo Episode II montage called "Choices."

It's possible that this is what's available on Gnutella. Its a quicktime video, but, like I said, is comprised of still photos and some background music.


What about November 9th? (3, Interesting)

M_Talon (135587) | about 13 years ago | (#2493606)

Anyone who has the Ep 1 DVD knows they've been hyping November 9th. It was just kinda assumed that was the release date for the new teaser for Ep 2. Anyone check lately to see if 11/9 is still being promoted, or if they've changed that to 11/2 (the release date of Monsters Inc)?

Re:What about November 9th? (1)

FortKnox (169099) | about 13 years ago | (#2493701)

From what I've heard, 11/9 is when they'll release the "full" trailer to DVD owners.

Re:What about November 9th? (2)

geomcbay (263540) | about 13 years ago | (#2493708)

The general Internet buzz, which thus far has proved to be correct (it predicted the teaser on Monsters, Inc about a month ago) is that there are going to be three seperate trailers in quick succession, one with Monsters, Inc (Nov 2); one (longer one) with Harry Potter (Nov 16); and one Internet trailer that is released between the two.

My semi-educated guess would be Nov 9th is when the Internet trailer will be released..maybe as a DVD exclusive at first(?).

Re:What about November 9th? (2, Interesting)

pmcneill (146350) | about 13 years ago | (#2493713)

According to the rumors on [] , there will be two teaser trailers and the Harry Potter trailer this month. The first teaser, "Breathing" is attached to Monsters, Inc. The second is supposed to be released on November 9, and trailer "A" is November 16. Trailer B will supposedly show up in March.

Harry Potter? (1)

DragonWyatt (62035) | about 13 years ago | (#2493612)

Perhaps someone could fill me in on what all this Harry Potter stuff is about?

Maybe five or six sentences giving background and what's worth caring about?



Re:Harry Potter? (1)

ErikZ (55491) | about 13 years ago | (#2493683)

Why don't you move your lazy fingers and do a search on slashdot for the topic "Harry Potter" and "Hugo Winner"

6 sentences. Sheesh. How can you manage a whole book?

Re:Harry Potter? (2)

gmhowell (26755) | about 13 years ago | (#2493685)

Entertaining stories about an outsider/geek type kid. His parents were killed, he is now 11 years old, and it is time to fulfill his birthright.

I'm not sure why it is SO popular. I mean, they are entertaining stories, but I see nothing deep or profound in them.

My wife started reading them to find out what the kids were going on about (she's a teacher) and I picked them up, as I found out I was going to be taking her and infant son to the movie.

Re:Harry Potter? (1)

joeytsai (49613) | about 13 years ago | (#2493761)

Note: I've only read the first three books, so anything I say outside of those books is speculation - I haven't seen interviews with Rowling or read articles about books, etc.

The books are a series of seven novels, which follow an orphaned boy (Harry) between the ages 11-17. Naturally, teenage years are good fodder for stories, but then there's the fact that Harry learns he is a Wizard.

Each book is around a year, starting with his summer vacation, and then his school year at a Wizard school Hogwarts. (You go to Hogwarts for seven years, hence the series of seven novels).

Not only is there an adventure each year, but along with that you learn more and more about the Harry Potter universe, in particular the story about his parents. Going back to what I said earlier, not only do you see Harry growing and learning more about himself and where he comes from, but you also begin to get a better picture of Harry's wizard universe. In particular, the grand good vs. evil battle involving a Wizard so feared that most don't even want to say his name.

What I'd rather see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2493614)

Is a trailer for Zero Wing 2: Attack Of The Cats!

For Great Justice!

Correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2493615)

"Ep-I DVD owners who don't use Macs should be able to view the trailers on once Monsters, Inc. hits theaters."

Mac Users and Star Wars Episode One DVD Beware... (2, Offtopic)

BoarderPhreak (234086) | about 13 years ago | (#2493617)

Lots of neat Star Wars ASCII art [] is available at this site for the curious... :)

Re:Mac Users and Star Wars Episode One DVD Beware. (2)

BoarderPhreak (234086) | about 13 years ago | (#2493630)


Forgot to add the part about the DVD incompatibilities for Mac users of the Episode I DVD. Go figure, the site "Go2Mac" where a lot of the info is (or was linked from) is having some issues right now. Last I heard, the company that produced the DVD responded about it, but that's also on that site... :(

Re:Mac Users and Star Wars Episode One DVD Beware. (2)

BoarderPhreak (234086) | about 13 years ago | (#2493702)

Here's the story [] on Go2Mac.

Very strange though. This isn't the story I was looking for - there was another with actual details, and the reply(s) from the company producing the DVD. I've searched "Macsurfer" and although "star wars" brings up a bunch of hits, not the ones I had read a week or two ago. Were they erased? Were they moved? Got me. :-/

1st p0st! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2493618)

Own3D!!!!!!! f34r m3!

You can't download the trailer unless you buy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2493621)

the DVD? Sheesh, thank goodness for limewire.

methinks Star Wars is for kids (2)

MattW (97290) | about 13 years ago | (#2493632)

me no think fans of original be liking dumbed down sequels. methinks second-run matinee for AOTC (at best).

Funny... I look forward to HP more than AOTC (1)

stilwebm (129567) | about 13 years ago | (#2493635)

It is funny that as a child of the Star Wars generation, I look forward to Harry Potter more than the next Star Wars film. Phantom Menace just ruined my desire to see Attack of the Clones.

Star Wars Trailers and Movie Grosses (3, Insightful)

BiteMyShinyMetalAss (444575) | about 13 years ago | (#2493638)

Slightly offtopic, but a question that I at least thought was interesting...

I remember reading that tons of fans went to see 'Meet Joe Black' (I'm prettysure that's what it was) just to watch the Episode I trailer, and I'm guessing that the same will happen with 'Monsters, Inc.' (although 'Monsters, Inc.' is probably more enjoyable than than 'Meet Joe Black')

I wonder: how much of an effect do the new Star Wars trailers have on the grosses of the films that they appear in front of? I'm sure that the take from 'Meet Joe Black' was nicely boosted by those who walked out after the trailer ;)

Re:Star Wars Trailers and Movie Grosses (2)

UserChrisCanter4 (464072) | about 13 years ago | (#2493724)

IIRC, the first film with the Episode One trailer was Wing Commander. In the case of WC, a lot of Star Wars fans went for the first few minutes to see the trailer and then walked out to the lobby to demand a refund.

As far as Wing Commander is concerned, the Episode 1 trailer most likely did have an effect on the gross (although not much of one, Wing Commander failed horribly at the box office). In the case of Monsters Inc., though, I don't think it will be any effect at all. I had been planning to see that movie since I first saw previews. I own Toy Story 1, Toy Story 2, and A Bug's Life on DVD. Pixar simply does a wonderful job with their films. An Episode 2 trailer is just iceing on the cake.

Re:Star Wars Trailers and Movie Grosses (2, Interesting)

Murdock037 (469526) | about 13 years ago | (#2493772)

I remember the same thing-- that opening weekend grosses were boosted by quite a bit because the Episode 1 trailer was attached. (For the record, though, in my area at least, it wasn't attached to Meet Joe Black-- a minor tragedy, because anticipation for the trailer was the reason I agreed to take my girlfriend to MJB in the first place).

I doubt it'll be quite such a noticable effect this time around, though, for a few reasons:

1. Star Wars fever has cooled considerably. We're not waiting here after a 16-year buildup-- it's only been a couple since Episode 1.

2. Considering the general feeling of disappointment left over from Episode 1 among the hard-core fans-- who are the ones that would pay for another movie just to see the new trailer-- it probably won't be such an event.

3. Monsters, Inc. and Harry Potter are going to do some big fat business in the first place. Any boost they get from the new teaser is probably just another drop in the bucket. I know I'm more excited to see 90 minutes of Pixar than two minutes of Lucasfilm, and I doubt you'd be able to find a kid in America that would disagree.

Of course, all of this is rambling based on knowledge gained from my Entertainment Weekly subscription, so it's all up for debate.

Both on my list anyway... (1)

Nijika (525558) | about 13 years ago | (#2493641)

I'm starved for good sci-fi....

You can get the write up here: (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2493647)

Off-Topic: Episode I Surround Content (1)

snookerdoodle (123851) | about 13 years ago | (#2493648)

Just a related note: Episode I is the first movie I've watched that had rear center channel info (the "EX" in "Surround EX") since I got a 7.1 system and added rear speakers.

It *does* add to the experience somewhat. OTOH, I found the THX Optimizer thing kinda cheesy and just a reiteration of what you had already done with your system if you had bothered to rtfm...


According to the rumors... (1)

silent_poop (320948) | about 13 years ago | (#2493655) it sounds like Trailer B (the internet download) will actually be later than the Monsters, Inc release date.

Spoilers (1, Interesting)

Aurelfell (520560) | about 13 years ago | (#2493672)

I'm almost afraid to watch teasers for Episode II. Two days before Episode I hit then theatres, I saw a track called Qui-Gon's Noble End on the soundtrack. Spoilers lake that can take away for one's enjoyment of a movie, especially and epic-style flick like Star Wars.

Actually, . . . (2, Interesting)

Limburgher (523006) | about 13 years ago | (#2493673)

First of all, J.K. Rowling is a woman. On a more relevant note, the Harry Potter series is a fascinating epic with many threads and topics that keep adults enthralled, myself included. My wife read the first one, and recommended it to me, and I thought, 'oh, ok, i'll succumb to the hype this once' but it was amazing, and the other three only get better. There are also parallels with Star Wars. Young boy of unusual ability lives with aunt and uncle from infancy due to parents' mysterious deaths at the hands of an unknown evil. These facts are revealed suddenly and the boy's world is changed forever, as he learns to tap his powers and fight evil, while gathering friends. A New Hope, or The Sorcerer's Stone? Both, actually.

Harry Potters Books (1)

bamberg29 (240460) | about 13 years ago | (#2493696)

I've just finished reading the first Harry Potter book on Saturday and since have read about one fourth of the second book in the series.

I must say that although it seems like a children book (I told myself a while back that I would never read them), they are quite entertaining and are a fun read.

If the movie is any much near the book, then it will probably be one good movie.

BTW, I'm a 18 year old I definately don't fall into the Harry Potter stereotype.

Typical (5, Funny)

elefantstn (195873) | about 13 years ago | (#2493698)

Good thing I'm planning on seeing both of those movies anyway.

CmdrTaco then continued by saying,

"Then I plan to complain on slashdot that Disney, AOL-TW, and Fox -- coincidentally the companies who will be making money off Monsters, Inc., Harry Potter, and Star Wars Episode II respectively -- are using their vast monetary resources to purchase laws in the United States Congress. The irony of blasting these movie studios repeatedly on my website and then in the same breath praising and promoting their movies is apparently totally lost on me."

who CARES? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2493699)

EP II will sucks anyway, why try to get your hopes up? Sure, for EP I i was at the first screening at midnight (only because a professor had bought tickets for the show, then couldn't make it, sold them to me at cost), but it sucked, you think EP II will be any better? come on, fucking give it up already, the new shit will never had the charm that the originals did.

Good thing I'm planning on seeing both ... (1, Redundant)

vanguard (102038) | about 13 years ago | (#2493718)

Good thing I'm planning on seeing both of those movies anyway.

Really? I'm probably going to see the next star wars but I'm not eagerly looking forward to it. C'mon, the last two star wars movies sucked.

I'm not looking to start a flame war but I really don't see this as a major event. It's not even "News for Nerds". It's just news for star wars fans that haven't stopped caring after the last two episodes.

/me checks the "no star wars news" box in his preferences.

Consume. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2493741)

Consume. You know your duty. You are what you consume. Star Wars is nothing without you. You are nothing without Star Wars. Consume. Partake. He who knows no bounds is holy. Without limits, we are endless. Those that would limit your freedom are insincere. Those who revel in their glutton will know god. Consume.

News Flash! (2, Funny)

gcondon (45047) | about 13 years ago | (#2493744)

MegaCineCorp has announced the list of films showing the highly anticipated "teaser trailer" for the upcoming Hype Wars Episode N - Send in the Clones.

Studio spokesman, Rip Ewoff, was quoted as saying "after we milk those freeks for two full-price tickets, it should be just about time for them to get into line for the premeire".

MegaCineCorp President, Ernesto Palpatine, could not be reached for comment.

Apple (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | about 13 years ago | (#2493750)

Side note to Mac fans: According to IGN, Steve Jobs was the one that confirmed the trailer was playing with Monsters Inc.

I know what the trailer will be like! (4, Funny)

Amon CMB (157028) | about 13 years ago | (#2493752)

"They came from outer space!"

"They came from Planet X!"

"OH NO!"

"Run, hide! They are coming!"

Natalie Portman: ::screeeeam::

"Come see the latest in the Star Wars saga!"

Star Wars Episode II: When Clones Attack

*sigh* (0, Troll)

DigitalSorceress (156609) | about 13 years ago | (#2493770)

Anyone ever get the feeling that Lucasfilms is the Microsoft of the movie industry?

They are so brilliant at marketing their wares that you almost forget that their actual product it crap.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?