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 Reviews Pour In

chrisd posted more than 12 years ago | from the when-packard-bells-attack dept.

Star Wars Prequels 282

Dork King writes "The New York Time's Review of AOTC (free reg, yada yada) notes that Attack of the Clones doesn't look good for fans. Thankfully, I'm not a fan." Also, dw5000 writes "The BBC has a favorable review of Attack of the Clones on its news website, as well as an executive summary of what the UK papers are saying about AotC. The populist tabloids love it, while the broadsheets are giving cautious approval. Hmm. Maybe I won't wait for DVD ..." I also noticed Variety has a review up as well. Also, for those who have lost all hope for Star Wars, I submit to you the date of the Spider-Man sequel: May 7th, 2004. You should know that spoilers exist in one or more of these stories. Beware!

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

i'm watching the VCD! (fp) (-1)

beee (98582) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495023)

ha! fUCK tHE mPAA!

blah (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495025)

first post w00t! C-Floor!

Things To Do Today (-1)

Things To Do Today (576443) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495027)

1. Eat corn-on-the-cob

2. Shit corn-in-my-crap

Re:Things To Do Today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495112)

3. Profit!

Re:Things To Do Today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495252)

3. Eat crap-with-corn

4. Shit crap-with-corn-in-my-shit

spoiler (4, Funny)

dirvish (574948) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495038)

Spider-Man spoiler? How is that possible? Anyone who is a fan knows every possible story line they could use in the sequal.

Re:spoiler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495097)

He probably meant the Star Wars stories, since he did refer to "one of more" of the stories might have spoilers, and there was only one Spider-man story.

wtf?! (0, Troll)

discstickers (547062) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495040)

There's a new Star Wars?! Geez, why didn't anyone tell me. Last time around, I was drowning in Jar Jar Pepsi cans.

Overwhelmingly Positive Reviews (5, Interesting)

TheMonkeyDepartment (413269) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495044)

The reviews have, for the most part, been overwhelmingly positive. Chris Gore's review [] at Film Threat is a good example. He says AOTC is second only to Empire Strikes Back in quality. (It is important to note that he thought Phantom Menace was total crap, in fact he was one of its harshest critics.)

Re:Overwhelmingly Positive Reviews (1)

PontifexPrimus (576159) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495081)

If you're looking for a somwehat comprehensive listing of reviews, check out this [] []. While the press seems divided almost 50:50 on the issue, those not liking the movie are the most vocal...

Re:Overwhelmingly Positive Reviews (5, Informative)

spike hay (534165) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495090)

For those to lazy to register:

AFTER sitting through "Star Wars: Episode II -- Attack of the Clones," I'm tempted to quote an evergreen Public Enemy song: don't believe the hype. But really, belief is beside the point. The promotional machinery around the "Star Wars" franchise exists beyond fervor or skepticism; it is a fact of life. When the fifth installment in George Lucas's pop-Wagnerian cycle opens nationally on Thursday (after being shown at the first TriBeCa Film Festival on Sunday afternoon), the event will have all the spontaneity and surprise of an election day in the old Soviet Union.


Like weary Brezhnev-era Muscovites, the American

moviegoing public will line up out of habit and compulsion, ruefully hoping that this episode will at least be a little better than the last one, and perhaps inwardly suspecting that the whole elephantine system is rotten. Even the true believers camped out on the sidewalks with their toy light sabers (or the ones at the screening I attended who burst into applause at the appearance of the 20th Century Fox and Lucasfilm company logos) seem more dutiful than enthusiastic.

Already I can hear the equally habitual murmurs of protest: Oh, come on, lighten up! It's only a movie.

Well, for one thing, given the scale and expense (reportedly $140 million) of the enterprise, not to mention its ability to command the money and attention of audiences around the world, there's nothing "only" about it. And for another, while "Attack of the Clones" is many things -- a two-hour-and-12-minute action- figure commercial, a demo reel heralding the latest advances in digital filmmaking, a chance for gifted actors to be handsomely paid for delivering the worst line readings of their careers -- it is not really much of a movie at all, if by movie you mean a work of visual storytelling about the dramatic actions of a group of interesting characters.

Twenty-five years ago the first "Star Wars" picture, which we are now supposed to call "Episode IV -- A New Hope," offered a revelatory combination of whimsy and grandeur. The big, archetypal themes were there and would emerge into sharper relief through the next two films, but they were leavened by a cheeky sense of fun grounded in Mr. Lucas's love of old serials and B-movies. The solemn drama of Luke Skywalker's Oedipal struggle with Darth Vader was offset by, among other things, the twinkling Gable-and- Lombard sexiness of Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher as Han Solo and Princess Leia. The special effects were spectacular and elaborate, but there was also something jaunty in the inventiveness that produced them.

That was a long time ago. In reviving the saga, and setting out to chronicle Luke's genealogy and the earlier history of the Jedi order, Mr. Lucas seems to have lost his boyish glee. As the effects have grown more intricate and realistic, their ability to yield pleasure and astonishment has diminished.

"Clones" takes place 10 years after "Episode I -- The Phantom Menace," and it is as thick with exposition as an undergraduate history course. An early reference to disgruntled miners on one of the moons of Naboo elicits a spasm of anxiety: will this be on the final? Footnotes to the earlier (which is to say, to the later) episodes are interesting in a scholastic kind of way. Now, at long last, we know the parentage of Boba Fett, the vengeful bounty hunter from the first three films.

But where are the clones? Send in the clones! Patience, young Jedi. They're already here, on a distant, storm-tossed planet, waiting for their big climactic battle scene. First, however, you must attend to the political turmoil that threatens the stability of the republic. Separatists in far-flung solar systems, apparently in cahoots with the dark side, are causing all kinds of trouble, and the beleagured Jedi and the fractious senate are ill equipped to contain it. This leads to some earnest palaver among the sinister chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) and the Jedi elders, who include Samuel L. Jackson, Jimmy Smits, Ewan McGregor and Yoda, as well as assorted masked and computer-animated space knights and politicos.

Mr. McGregor, revisiting the role of Obi-Wan Kenobi and looking ever less likely to age into Sir Alec Guinness, must also undertake some intergalactic police work, trying to find those responsible for an attempt on the life of Senator Padmé Amidala (Natalie Portman), who has become a legislator after her tenure as the elected (and apparently term-limited) queen of Naboo. (Jar Jar Binks, the notorious duck-billed racial caricature from "The Phantom Menace," has also returned, accent and all. Now you may call him Senator Binks. Whether this makes the character less offensive or more is something to ponder.)

Obi-Wan's apprentice, Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen), is assigned to be Padmé's bodyguard. He promptly falls in love with her, which occasions some of the most embarrassing romantic avowals in recent screen history. The gifted Anakin also manifests some of the traits that will eventually pull him over to the dark side: arrogance, a hot temper and contempt for democratic institutions. It is clear by now that the purpose of the saga is to do for Anakin/ Darth Vader what Robert A. Caro has been doing for Lyndon B. Johnson, but Mr. Lucas lacks Mr. Caro's feel for human psychology and his insight into the workings of politics.

The story of a young, ambitious knight's corruption, set against a backdrop of incipient civil war, has enormous potential, but Mr. Lucas (who wrote the script with Jonathan Hales) is, at best, a haphazard storyteller. He also has lost either the will or the ability to connect with actors, and his crowded, noisy cosmos is pyschologically and emotionally barren. Mr. Christensen and Ms. Portman are timid and stiff, and uncertain of their diction. They alternate between the august tones of high-school Shakespeareans and the suburban soap-opera naturalism of "Dawson's Creek." Only Mr. Jackson, Frank Oz (the voice of Yoda) and, later, the formidable Christopher Lee seem comfortable in their performances, perhaps because they know better than to take the proceedings too seriously.

Now is perhaps the time to say that the special effects -- the scaly critters and planetary landscapes, the swordplay and the spaceship chases -- demonstrate impressive polish and visual integrity. But now is also the time to say: so what? Yes, the battle scenes and the monster rallies are superior to anything in "The Mummy," "The Mummy Returns" or "The Scorpion King," but that lowbrow franchise at least has the good sense to acknowledge its silliness. "Attack of the Clones," in contrast, like "The Phantom Menace," lumbers along in the confining armor of bogus wisdom.

There are two moments, one early and one late, in which the sententious hooey is cast off and some of the old "Star Wars" spirit peeks out. The first is an aerial chase through traffic-clogged skies, in which the great cinematic challenge of conveying flight is breathtakingly surmounted. The other is a light- saber duel between the evil Count Dooku (Mr. Lee) and Yoda. Watching the elfin, leaping Yoda mix it up with the tall, graceful British bad guy momentarily dispels the ponderous tedium that has come before, but it is too little, too late.

Given Mr. Lee's long career in horror films, the contest also recalls one of those debates that erupt among third graders about the relative prowess of fictional characters. ("No way could Batman beat up Superman. He doesn't even really have powers." "Yuh-uh, 'cause what if Batman had some Kryptonite?" "Yeah, but neither one of them could beat the Incredible Hulk.") Could Yoda beat up Dracula? Good question. But the more relevant one is whether Anakin Skywalker can beat Spider-Man. The answer, young Jedi, is in your hands.

That review In a nutshell: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495239)

"is many things -- a two-hour-and-12-minute action- figure commercial, a demo reel heralding the latest advances in digital filmmaking, a chance for gifted actors to be handsomely paid for delivering the worst line readings of their careers -- it is not really much of a movie at all"

more positive reviews from overseas, too (-1, Troll)

Frothy Walrus (534163) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495100)

check out this Babelfish [] of a European perspective. it's quite cavernous in its depth, with a fiery red tone throughout. overall, it's quite positive.

Re:more positive reviews from overseas, too (1)

pangloss (25315) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495174)

oh look kids, it's a (poorly disguised) link.

Re:more positive reviews from overseas, too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495260)

I had faith that all things work out for the greatest good in the end, Pangloss. A terrible Episode 1 must have been perpetrated to bring forth a grand Episode 2.


Site is 404 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495249)

No need to go, it's 404.

Re:Overwhelmingly Positive Reviews (3, Interesting)

Shelled (81123) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495113)

From the Film Threat review:

Let me put it to you this way, "Clones" is not a good movie - but it is an incredibly awesome Star Wars movie!

If this is an example of a Chris Gore rave, I'm dying to read one of his pans.

Re:Overwhelmingly Positive Reviews (Chris Gore) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495282)

Chris Gore is my hero. I've been reading and enjoying Film Threat since the days when it was printed on dead trees and delivered to my mailbox. Gore is, hands-down, the most no-bullshit film critic out there, unlike Harry Knowles who is in the pocket of any studio who'll pay for the room service tab.

Re:Overwhelmingly Positive Reviews (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495217)

slashdot is just about dead, in case you havne't noticed, this website just plain sucks!. They cant' afford a decent editing crew, 'cause they are to poor, they spent all their IPO money. Now they are begging for donations. How pathetic is that?

Plot twist to come (2, Funny)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495046)

The Jedi are destroyed and the remaining few are scattered about the galaxy.

Anakin turns to the Dark Side and becomes Darth Vader.

Jar Jar Binks is the worst Star Wars character ever.

Lucas should have gone for real foreign languages instead of giving everyone bad accents.

LINUX SPOILER (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495047)


Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495053)

Will it suck mine as well?

Reviews (-1)

Reikk (534266) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495052)

"The New York Time's Review of AOTC (free reg, yada yada)

You mean: "free reg, yoda yoda"

One also at Fox News (3, Informative)

Drizzten (459420) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495055)

Re:One also at Fox News (0, Troll)

MisterBlister (539957) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495193)

Fox News eh? That one ought to be free from bias...

Seeing it ...ahem... digitally (1)

warmcat (3545) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495059)

I read on alt.binaries.vcd that FTF already has a telesync, so you may indeed not have to wait for the DVD.

Pirate scum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495071)

These people work hard to make a movie and you steal it. So theres less money for number 3 ... fuck you faggot.

Re:Pirate scum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495082)

Even if I get a copy of Episode I, I'll still see it in the theatre.

And there will be an Episode III whether this one tanks or not.

Go back to listening to the MP3s you downloaded from Morpheus you hypocrite (I KNOW you have them).

Re:Pirate scum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495121)

And there will be an Episode III whether this one tanks or not.

You can't justify stealing that way. When the screener comes out I'll bet there are dozens of pimply faced nerds who'll sit there downloading it on their 56k modem for about 100hours and then they'll burn it and sell it to all their friends.
We whinge about how the MPAA wants to eliminate "fair use" when in fact all most of us want to do is to ensure the piracy status quo continues. The only way to stop the legislators from stuffing us around is to get together and dob in those that leech off the sweat and blood of others.

Go back to listening to the MP3s you downloaded from Morpheus you hypocrite (I KNOW you have them).

The ONLY mp3s I have are either ripped off the cds that I legally purchased (the artists deserve my support) or downloaded legally from
So take your name calling and shove it up your ass, because I have a consciense.

Re:Seeing it ...ahem... digitally (1)

kawaichan (527006) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495074)

The quality is so bad that it's not even funny

Don't be cheap, go pay $8 and watch it.

It would really spoil the whole thing when you are trying to tell people apart...

Re:Seeing it ...ahem... digitally (1, Offtopic)

rosewood (99925) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495099)

haha - $8 - you are fucking kidding me?

I havent seen a movie in YEARS worth eight fucking dollars

See my post about my 3 12:01 am DLP showing tickets for AotC

I paid $4 a peice

Re:Seeing it ...ahem... digitally (0, Offtopic)

vample (30259) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495189)

> haha - $8 - you are fucking kidding me?
> I havent seen a movie in YEARS worth eight
> fucking dollars
> See my post about my 3 12:01 am DLP
> showing tickets for AotC
> I paid $4 a peice

Thats because you live in the middle of fucking nowhere.

"Wichita" as you pointed out in your other post.

You can probably buy land there at 10 cents an acre or something. Where I live in Manhattan, land is a bit more expensive and so movies are $10 a pop. But then I've also got the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Guggenheim, the Whitney and half a dozen movie theaters within 6 blocks, where you're lucky if you have a Gas-n-Go less than a couple miles.

Quality of life. Enjoy your $4 movies.

Re:Seeing it ...ahem... digitally (2, Insightful)

rosewood (99925) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495270)

Wow - I hope you are just trolling

I dont dare discount the culture of NYC

However, if your ignorant statement is a true reflection of your beleif then you can see why so many people hate New Yorkers and their fucking snobby attitude

Can you sleep at night in the dark and quiet and have a cool non-polluted breeze come through your open window that no one is going to break in through?

Can you drive 15 miles and be in the middle of no-where?

I live in a City of half a million. Sure, thats small but I can go to a festival this weekend w/o fear and enjoy and have a good time.

As for Gas-n-Go - well here its Quick Trips, the best convinience stores known to man-kind - I can go in there after midnight and not fear it will get robbed. I can shit on their toilet and not get some disease.

Oh, I can also get a tech job in Wichita - and $65,000 goes a long way here

Cost of living here is way low, and quality of living aint shabby at all

Re:Seeing it ...ahem... digitally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495278)

thank god I have karma to burn, cause that is so friggen off-topic

Re:Seeing it ...ahem... digitally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495084)

Star Wars-Attack Of Clones centropy 4 cd svcd

anks is ankit_gate@ * ankit

anks on #Requests
anks using Jesus is coming, everyone look busy.
anks has been idle 11secs, signed on Thu May 09 19:55:29
anks End of /WHOIS list.


Having seen the movie... (5, Informative)

Obiwan Kenobi (32807) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495073)

...thanks to a friend of a friend of an executive, I can tell you that the movie is a Star Wars fans' dream. I'm going spoiler-free this time out.

The Good:

The visuals are amazing. From start to finish, while Lucas may be in love with the computers a bit too much, what is here is fantastic and you will definitely hear gasps during several points of the movie.

The Yoda battle. If you've seen the TV commercials you know what I'm talking about. If you haven't, think green, think three feet tall, think Jedi. He's not called a master for nothing.

Ewan McGregor. The man is a genius and his little ticks and manerisms put him in the character so well it makes the rest of the actors look bad. The Score. Oh man, Williams sealed the Oscar nod about twenty minutes in. You'll see what I mean. It's beautiful, beautiful stuff.

What's Bad:

The dialogue stinks. While witty banter is sparse, and mostly kept to the great Obiwan/Anakin discussions found in different spots, make not mistake that the romance story's wooden, dead-before-it-leaves-their-mouths lines are cringe-inducing.

Hayden Christenson. Not bad, per se, Not a lot going on here. He tries too hard and sometimes it's hard to swallow. He does nail it in a few key scenes, most specifically near the climax of the movie, and that's what counts.

Jar-Jar. Even when he's reduced to 10 minutes of screen time, the damn guy still irritates the shit outta me.

Overall, this is a fun romp that as a film stinks, but as far as Star Wars and all that that implies, this is a fanboy's dream and not even Spider-Man comes close to the deep, heroin-junkie-like need to watch the movie again as soon as you see the end credits.

Prepare to geek out.

Re:Having seen the movie... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495117)

What's Bad: The dialogue stinks.

That's purely a US/UK/Australia/English-Canada problem. Other folks around the World have always enjoyed an acceptable dialogue for Star Wars by watching foreign language translations.

Re:Having seen the movie... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495283)

I'm going to finish my german language studies just so I can see if they actually add plot to the movie. Is it just me or does every movie in german have a note of seriousness about it, I mean besides wearing ugly suspenders is there any comedy in germany?

Fool me once, shame on you... but twice? Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495075)

I refuse to be fucked over again, and the inner child in me concurs. So I won't see it opening weekend, and I won't get my hopes up.

Don't- don't- don't believe the hype.

Re:Fool me once, shame on you... but twice? Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495262)

I think I'll wait for it to hit the Drive-Ins. Bring along a case of brewski and have some grins.

better link for spidey info (1)

packeteer (566398) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495077)

as the topic says []

Another Off Topic Comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495078)

This comment has nothing to do with anything.

Other mainstream reviews... (3, Informative)

koganuts (526569) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495080)

AotC got [] a C+, while Spider-Man got [] a B (different reviewer though).

AotC reviews have also been summarized at Studio Briefing [] (first headline under "Film"), although it mistakenly points out that Episodes IV-VI are the top-selling DVDs (instead of the top-REQUESTED DVDs) on, and listed at Rotten Tomatoes [] .

My AotC tickets (2)

rosewood (99925) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495092)

First, let me say that I saw TPM @ 12:01 AM CST just on a whim. There were news stories about these dorks in costumes waiting DAYS and DAYS to get their tickets and get in. My friend and I got done with a meeting late and decided what the hell. We got there @ 11:30PM, bought two tickets, got some drinks and pop-corn -- no lines for either activity -- and grabbed two half decent seats and watched the movie.

Well, this time I pre-bought tickets but thats because Dickinson Northrock 14 here in Wichita has anounced it will have TI's DLP starting with Episode Two on opening night. I now have 3 tickets for me and friends for the 12:01 showing -- but in DLP. I am not a star wars fan (Ive never seen EP 6, although I have it in DivX) but I wanna check out this DLP shit -- I hear its gonna kick ass and at least my eyes will be brought to orgasm if the movie is not that pleasing.

...and it's already on the net! (4, Interesting)

VValdo (10446) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495096)

According to The LA Times [] , you can find AOTC on irc chat.

From the article:

The pirating of "Attack of the Clones" lends fuel to the film industry's efforts in Washington to crack down on piracy. While the studios' trade association steps up its enforcement activities, their lobbyists are pushing for laws that would require computers and consumer electronics to be modified to deter unauthorized copying.

"It's an extremely serious threat," said Jean Murrell Adams, head of the litigation department at DreamWorks SKG. "I'm not surprised that it's on the Internet. I talk to pirates because I want to find out why they're doing this. And what I've been told is that they were eagerly anticipating who would be first to do this. It's a challenge for them."

Apparently it's a version videotaped in the theater, which they're worried will cut into DVD sales (?)


Re:...and it's already on the net! (3, Funny)

rosewood (99925) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495102)

I have 100+ DivXs sitting here next to me
I dont have a single DivX of a movie I would buy on DVD or havent seen on a theatre screen

Its been shown time and again that p2p etc. does not cut into sales


I guess I just dont understand - its like the free art museum that wont let you take pictures to show your friends half way across the world that will NEVER SEE THIS ART

Re:...and it's already on the net! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495240)

Er, they don't let you take pictures because they want you to buy postcards and photos from the gift shop - how else do you think these free museums will survive? Government 'funding'? Donations?? Heh.

Re:...and it's already on the net! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495261)

a museum I worked at (not a free art one, but a history one) couldnt make a dime in the giftshop simply because it sucked

but thats besides the point

Re:...and it's already on the net! (1)

VirexEye (572399) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495110)

I bet they actually believe themselves when they think that a low quality video taped overcompressed copy of the movie is going to make them lose ticket sales... I guess I can tolerate big business trying to protect their money but it is obvious they don't know where to draw the line.

Re:...and it's already on the net! (2)

RAVasquez (318309) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495116)

It's interesting how Lucas was so gung-ho about AoTC being end-to-end digital, which ironically may hasten its appearance as a first-gen-quality .mpg on the warez boards. I wonder how heavily Lucasfilm lobbied behind the scenes for the CBDTPA.

Re:...and it's already on the net! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495223)

"first-gen-quality .mpg" is an oxymoron, of course. I did get to watch master D5 tapes of the film recently, before compression. I've seen it compressed for the digital projectors 2 or 3 times too. Almost raw, the film is 68 GB and takes 15 DVD-Rs to store. Don't think the pirates have anything nearly the same quality.

$100 says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495222)

That the RIAA leakes a bad quality screener for its own good.

Re:$100 says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495230)

That the MPAA leakes a bad quality screener for its own good.

Bootleg already out. (1)

Tsian (70839) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495114)

Ironic that on the day of this posting, days before release, a Telesync release is already out. May the force be with them?

NFO []

phantom menace (1)

antistuff (233076) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495115)

I was watching the phantom menace tonight and had this really cool idea of somthing to post for the next star wars story that was sure to get +5 funny but i forgot what it was.

Kinda sucks huh.

Ripped (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495122)

And a reviewers rip is already circulating IRC!

recipe for comments in this discussion: (4, Funny)

jdbo (35629) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495128)

mix-n-match to your pleasure:

claim to righteousness:

  • "I haven't seen it, and..." (modded up as insightful)
  • "I have seen it, and..." (lying, modded up as informative)
  • "I have seen it, and..." (true, modded down as troll)

claim of truth:
  • " sucks!..." (modded up as insightful)
  • " rocks!..." (modded up as insightful)
  • " sucks and (LOTR/Spider-Man/Matrix) rocks!..." (modded up as insightful)
  • " rocks and (LOTR/Spider-Man/Matrix) sucks!..." (modded up as insightful)
  • "...[perverse rant about Natalie Portman]..." (continously modded up as interesting and down as troll)
  • "...what about the MPAA?..." (modded down as flamebait)
  • "...[actual thoughtful review]..." (modded down as redundant)

parting declaration:
  • "...Lucas has lost it!..." (modded up as insightful)
  • "...Lucas is the king!..." (modded up as insightful)
  • "...the FX are incredible!..." (modded down as redundant)
  • "...I've done better FX on my basement 486 using POVRAY..." (modded up as interesting)
  • "'s OK. Go see it if you're interested, ignore it otherwise, and by all means wait for the swarming masses of raving geeks to dissipate..." (ignored by moderators)
  • "...[desparate plea for a date with Natalie Portman]..." (modded up as funny)

Re:recipe for comments in this discussion: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495274)

[perverse rant about Natalie Portman]

Here's my perverse question about Natalie Portman. It looks like part of her shirt is torn apart in the movie, yet she continues to fight depite her navel showing (a strong focussed woman, I like that). Now what if the tear was so that instead her breasts were showing, should she still continue fighting? This in not a troll, but a serious question about the focus and dedication of the character Padme Amidala.

Ripoff (5, Funny)

miracle69 (34841) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495136)

This movie is an obvious ripoff of two highly successful movies from two different eras: Strange Brew [] and Spiderman []

Let's Compare.

Strange Brew : Star Wars EP II
Flying Dog : Flying Green Muppet
Plot to take over world : Plot to take over universe
Evil hockey players : Stormtroopers
Beer is source of power : "Midichlorion" microbrew
Bob and Doug : Obi and Anakin
Based on Hamlet : Based on ancient myths
Max von Sydow : Ian McDiarmid

Clearly, this movie is just a poor-rehash of Strange Brew with one twist - Spiderman special effects and the "spider sense" redone in an effort to trick the viewer into liking this poor-rendition of the greatest movie ever made, Strange Brew.

I don't buy it.


Re:Ripoff (1)

Russ Steffen (263) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495212)

Great, thanks. Now I'll never be able to hear the Imperal March again without also hearing Geddy Lee sing "Take Off! To the great white north! Take Off! It's a beauty way to go."


Spoiler warning! (0)

cafelatte (99544) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495139)

Anakin Skywalker lives through this movie!

Re:Spoiler warning! (1)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495163)

Obi-wan and Yoda too!

Mathilda! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495140)

My how you've grown! I have prepared a bowl of grits for you. Should I pour them down your pants or can you do it yourself?

Ah, my petrified darling!

Re:Mathilda! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495253)

Heh heh heh.

NYT accounts deleted (karma whoring too) (2, Informative)

shird (566377) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495146)

Anyone else notice the blah/blah and yada/yada login/passwords don't seem to work at New York Times anymore. Perhaps they have noticed the huge number using those accounts and cancelled them. Use this [] link instead.

Does it really matter how bad the movie is? (1)

Down With DMCA (577678) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495151)

People are going to see the movie no matter what ensuring the MPAA and Valenti and the movie studios have plenty of money to fund the DeCSS case and any other cases that may come up where people with to use technology that the studios don't like.

Re:Does it really matter how bad the movie is? (1)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495155)

Your crusade isn't making a difference.

You, sir, are a fuckwit. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495170)

Great name and all - I'm very impressed. Go back to being fat and happy and not affected by the DMCA whatsoever. You are a fucking massive tool.

Doctor Octopus in Spidey II? (0, Offtopic)

Ars-Fartsica (166957) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495165)

I'd love to see Doc Oc, who I consider Spidey's best golden-age nemesis, in the second film.

Hopefully they'll keep the playful and good-hearted nature of the golden-age storytelling in the Spider Man series and not devolve into the infantile anti-heroism and broodiness of the Venom years.

Re:Doctor Octopus in Spidey II? (1)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495203)

Now why that post wasn't mod'ed down for being offtopic I'll never know...

AOTC (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495166)

Since I have nothing witty to say, I will state for the record that Chewbacca is a better actor than Worf.

You'll still see it anyways (0)

willpost (449227) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495171)

Lucas has earned enough respect that everyone who has complaints about the movie will still see it. I'd rather he create whatever he wants than to rely on the political correctness and Star Wars continuity of all the fans.

The preview it was incredible.

Personal Message to Mister Lucas (0)

TheFukYuTroll (576082) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495177)

Fuk Yu VARY much!

Obligatory (1)

wheany (460585) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495181)

So, the MPAA is good this friday? I forgot.

Re:Obligatory (1)

martyn s (444964) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495238)

What would you have us do, boycott popular culture?

Interesting.. (0)

TheFukYuTroll (576082) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495186)

I haven't seen ATOC, but that is because I expect so little from it...especially compared to LOTR. Let's be honest here, how many people who were "of age" when all of the movies came out would agree that the last decent one was ROTJ? (unless you count the ROTJ game for the amiga, which-while fun- as a serious fan of the farnchise I would never do...even in jest).

It's already online... (0)

Tails (20769) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495187)

Of course, for those who don't want to wait 7 more days, you could download the movie.

A screener is circulating (bootlegged at a press screening event) of the entire movie.

You can find details here. []
JPG Sample []
.nfo for release []

'screener' term (-1)

beee (98582) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495213)

a screener is a rip from a VHS copy of the movie sent to critics and media-types. what you really meant is a telesync -- recorded with a high-quality digital camera and usually direct sound inputs.

Digital? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495202)

I'm having a hard time figuring out which theaters in southern california are showing Ep. 2 in digital. Does anyone have a list or a link or something?

Re:Digital? (1)

th'FOOL (577557) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495225)

go to - they have a listing

Anakin vs droideka (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495204)

It would be cool to see Anakin take out the destroyer droids with no problem. The other Jedis just run away from them.

Movie reviews and best-seller lists (3, Insightful)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495206)

I couldn't help but notice how we're all watching like hawks to see how the new Star Wars movie is being reviewed, especially in the context of Slashdotters' comments about bestseller lists [] .

I wonder what it is that makes us so skeptical of the perceptions of others when it comes to books, but so eager to hear the opinions of others when we're talking about movies.

Re:Movie reviews and best-seller lists (4, Insightful)

Malcontent (40834) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495244)

The truth of the matter is that it does not matter how good or bad this movie is. The last one sucked massively yet everybody went to see it anyway. Everybody will rush out and see this one too just because it says star wars in the title and geekboys think they will be super cool if they are first in line.

There is a sucker born every minute and two to take him. Lucas knows how to milk the suckers for all they are worth.

Re:Movie reviews and best-seller lists (1)

martyn s (444964) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495245)

There's a big difference between bestseller lists and reviews. I don't think anyone here has a problem with book reviews, but they still couldn't give a shit that "chicken soup for the soul" or some crap like that is up there on the list.

Some reviewers said some very good things. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495209)

Check out this review. []

nice review, new york times.... (2)

transiit (33489) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495210)

I'm reminded of a Bloom County strip I read many years back where a film review was being written down at ye olde Bloom Picayune: "It did for cinema what Jonestown did for Kool-Aid".

Sometimes the reviewers are on to something, sometimes they just sound like elitist pricks. As I recall, Siskel & Ebert gave "The Usual Suspects" two thumbs down, which remains one of my favorite movies to date. I've plans to see this one, but I'm not sure I have the interest to go out of my way to see it opening night. I'm even busy enough with the approaching finals that I'd probably miss any lone-gunmen-are-dead reviews around these parts


**Whaooomph!** (3, Informative)

n4zgl (578195) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495214)

that was the sound of the LotR gauntlet landing

This movie had to be better. Watching the 'love' version preview in theatres playing Fellowship of the Rings gave you a feeling similar to watching the kid next door show of his supermario brothers LCD two days after you got a C64...

I am glad to hear Lucas and Co have pulled it off. Bring on the talent!

For those too lazy to register (0)

TheFukYuTroll (576082) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495215)

read this from sllort's journal INSTEAD!!! lay&uid=4425 74&id=4373

sllort's Journal
Slashdot Moderation : Exercising Agreement
Monday January 28, @09:24PM [ Add Friend | #4373 ]
Slashdot Moderation : Exercising Agreement

A journey into the statistical methods employed to create Comments That Agree .

As I discussed in my previous journal entry, nearly 500 moderators were manually and permanently removed from the pool of potential moderators for giving positive moderation to this comment. While the manual banning of potential moderators by the Editorial staff is not documented, the source code used to accomplish this is readily available and the practice appears to be quite commonplace. The reasonable questions that arise from this practice are: how many moderators are being banned, what is the objective, and what are the actual results? The Slashdot Editorial staff has repeatedly stated that they don't have time to answer these questions (they're certainly not addressed in the FAQ), so it's up to us, the readers, to ponder them.

How many moderators are being permanently banned from the moderation pool? No one knows for certain except perhaps the Editors. Let's look at what we do know. Five hundred moderators were banned for moderating this comment. If we assume that one such comment is posted on a daily basis, that is approximately 185,000 potential moderators banned per year. That post was probably an exception, so we must revise our number. Jamie McCarthy made a post to a User-Created discussion which is deleted every two weeks, so I must reproduce his comment by cut & paste:

"Well, again, we have the logs, so we know what we're talking about. We log both how many times we give mod points, and how many times we would have given mod points but didn't. In the former category: 99.73%; in the latter, 0.27%." - Jamie McCarthy, Slashdot Editor

Additionally, Rob Malda made a related comment in a User-Created discussion:

There are a quarter of a million daily readers, but (and I just checked) only 1.2% of them post. So understand that those of you posting in the forums are already a minority of the community. - Rob Malda, Slashdot Founder & Editor

Now we have some numbers to run with. Of the 250,000 people who read Slashdot, 3,000 of them have an "Interest Level" high enough to post comments here. This "Interest Level" stands at 1.2%, or .012. Now that we have the "Interest Level" for comments, we can use it to determine the "Interest Level" for Moderating & Metamoderating. Moderation requires less personal risk, so let's assume (to be as conservative as possible) that far more people want to moderate comments than post them. Let's assume that up to five times as many people want to moderate comments. There are probably far fewer, but since we are dealing with an assumption, we should make it a conservative one. This makes the "Interest Level" for Moderation about 6%, or .06. Now, Jamie has stated that 99.73% of readers receive moderator points and are not banned. Their "Interest Level" is .06, which means that (99.73 *.06 = 5.98) 5.98% of these people (at most) actually use their points. Now we have the banned moderators, the .27% that Jamie mentioned, who have been banned for bad moderation. Banned moderators have an interest level of 100%, because they have all used their points to get banned by an Editor. So, now we have a figure for the number of Moderators and Metamoderators who are included and excluded by the manual intervention of the Editors. (.27/(.27+5.98)) = .045, or 4.5%, is the lower bound for the percentage of moderators being manually excluded from the pool. If you run the numbers again assuming that the Interest Level for Moderation is the same as the Interest Level for posting comments, you arrive at a figure of 18.4% of moderators being manually banned. This would be our conservative upper bound. So, depending on how interested people are in moderation, between 5 and 18 percent of moderators have been manually banned from participating by the Editors.

What is the objective of the Editorial staff in manually removing User Moderators? That's a really tricky question to answer. Keep in mind that the Editors have gone to extensive lengths not to answer that question, so we must assume that it is an emotionally loaded subject. However, we can interpret some of their actions to arrive at an answer. The post mentioned in the beginning of this article was repeatedly moderated as Offtopic by many Editors. Rob Malda described it this way:

however only a smaller percentage of those moderators actually use their points... hundreds of users moderated it up [and I subsequently banned them all] I modded it [the comment] down a few times too. - Rob Malda, Slashdot Founder & Editor

Note that text in brackets was added by myself to reflect what we've learned. Reading that statement makes it pretty obvious that the purpose of removing Moderators from the pool is to ensure that the results of the Moderation system are consistent with what Rob Malda believes that the results of the moderation system should be. Moderators are chosen from a pool of Slashdot users who have not moderated contrary to the wishes of the Editors in the past. As the Slashdot FAQ states, "The Slashdot Editors have unlimited mod points ... These moderations represent approximately 8% of all moderation". In short, nearly ten percent of Moderation is accomplished manually by the Editorial staff, and the rest of User Moderation is accomplished by users that have not disagreed with the Editors about how to Moderate. What does this mean?

When surveying the impact of the Moderation system, there is one overridingly important statistic. That statistic is that over 99% of Slashdot readers do not post comments. Keep in mind that the default view of Slashdot has a threshold of one. This means that if you're moderated to zero or less, 99% of the people who would have read your comment... won't. Books could be written about whether or not blocking communication to 99% of the possible audience constitutes "Censorship", whatever that means today, but for the purposes of this essay, the point is moot. Suffice it to say that Moderation determines 99% of visibility, statistically. Now, consider that the Slashdot system, as a whole, is a constantly evolving system in which Moderators can transition from unbanned to banned, but not vice versa. Moderators who moderate differently than the "guide" Moderations of the Editors (which constitute 10% of the Moderation) are removed from the pool of influence. Therefore, Slashdot as a system moves in only one direction: towards promoting comments that are Moderated in agreement with the Editors. What is the role of Metamoderation? Let's look at the FAQ:

according to Meta Moderation, the fairness of these [editor Moderations] is statistically indistinguishable from the moderation of non admin users (92-93% of moderations are ruled 'Fair').

Keep in mind that the 5 to 18 percent of Slashdot Moderators who are banned from participating in Moderation are also banned from participating in MetaModeration. The purpose of MetaModeration, therefore, is that of reinforcing agreement. Those who have agreed with the Editors in the past are allowed to vote on whether the Editors moderate fairly. Not surprisingly, this subset of potential MetaModerators often agrees with the Editors. If they didn't, they'd probably have been removed already! MetaModeration, therefore, serves to reinforce agreement with the Editors among the selected Moderator pool, and Moderation serves to enact agreement with the Editors among the comments visible to 99% of Slashdot's readership. We only need one more quote from the FAQ to understand what this means:

Goals [of Moderation]: 1.Promote quality, discourage crap.
Since the Moderation system is a self-reinforcing system that promotes comments that agree with the Editors, we must assume that this comment means two things:

What the editors believe is quality.

What people who disagree with the Editors believe is crap.

That may be a strongly worded value judgement, but it stands as a conclusion easily & objectively reached. But aside from this value judgement, Slashdot stands as an example of a best-of-breed solution for those who wish to create a community that promotes agreement. Slash appears to have been specifically designed for this purpose, and it can be employed to create a community that agrees about.. just about anything! For instance, ask a Slashdot reader if Linux is a great Operating System. The answer will almost certainly be an emphatic yes! Rob Malda has created an excellent system for managing a userbase into agreement, and for the most part, the users agree with the system. Which was probably the whole point.

Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters. Comments that Agree.

Why is George Lucas so Greedy? (1)

Kreylix (322480) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495229)

Why must he make movies to sell toys, rather than make great movies?

Is he obsessed with selling more toys than McDonalds (the world's #1 toy-seller)?

If not, what is up?

And Star Wars fans, how can you still support this when every new movie is more disappointing than the last one? Yeah, the visuals get better and better. But the story gets dumber and dumber.

How much Star Wars merchandise can you fit in your closets? Just where the hell are you warehousing this stuff?


Dr Kool, PhD (173800) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495232)

WARNING -Huge spoiler below, skip to the next post if you don't want to read this...

Luke Skywalker's father is DARTH VADER!! Who would have thought??


ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495241)

As Luke Skywalker hasn't even been introduced in AotC, a true spoiler would be that Anakin Skywalker is Darth Vader.

Whoops! Did I let that gem out prematurely?

Kirsten Dunst in CAT'S MEOW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495236)

Feel a bit of a letdown over AoTC? Well, if any of you all who wish to see a movie for grown-ups,
I can highly recommend Peter Bogdanovich's [] Cat's Meow. []

You may remember Bogdanovich from some of his other movies like "Last Picture Show", "Paper Moon",
"Nickelodeon" and "Mask". Of course you probably have already seen Kirsten Dunst [] in
"Spider Man". Here's a chance to see another side of her talent.

Britney? (4, Funny)

Ogerman (136333) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495243)

Is it just my imagination or is queen Amidala dressed almost precisely like Britney Spears in that one scene? Tight vinyl pants and top, belly showing, etc. Except it's a white outfit instead of red.. How lame can you get? Lucas has definitely sold out to corporate America. Sad really..

Re:Britney? (1)

Cancer_Nick (578761) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495250)

Well, what would you rather she wore?

Quick crtique guidelines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3495254)

For me, if a UK "Quality Broadsheet" - especially The Guardian says a film is rubbish then it's usually brilliant. No doubt if they reviewed the same film slowed down, grayscaled, dubbed into Swaheli and with French subtitles then it would probably get 10/10. And I'm a Guardian reader!

Bear in mind also that UK tabloids are sometimes in the pockets of international media types such as Murdoch. These guys will endorse anything that has come out of the boss' studios.

It doesn't look good for AotC but I'll probably pay my 7 euros anyway* coz I'm total jailbait when it comes to a bit of cool CGI.

&lt RANT *gt *Note - even though I'm a brit I have personally declared myself a euro zone so I dont have to futz around with that ridiculous currency exchange every time I set foot outside the country. Ah yes what jaunt across the channel would be complete without waiting in line for 20 minutes only to get ripped off by a bank. Mmm m! &lt /RANT &gt

Stephen Spielberg's comments (2)

antdude (79039) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495264)

Link [] : "I saw CLONES two weeks ago up at George's. For the record, of all the STAR WARS they've made, this is my second favorite just ehind EMPIRE," Spielberg told us. "It was great. The action scenes looked like George had been inspired by James Cameron because they were as good as any of the action scenes in T2, and I think George did his best directing with this one too."

Well, it should be better than The Phantom Menace (episode 1) then. :)

Spoilers (2, Interesting)

kraf (450958) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495277)

I've been quite spoiled for this movie, reading the script and spy reports, downloading the pics etc.
It can be quite frustrating to know that a couple of my favourite scenes has been cut from the final, so I'm staying spolier free for EPIII.

Give me a break! (0, Flamebait)

bumbadi (564517) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495284)

You americans think always think starwars is the greatest thing in the universe. I am reaaaally bored with this! Sigh. somehow people fighting with tubelights entertains people.

And don't forget my review at Bureau 42 (1)

Dram (149119) | more than 12 years ago | (#3495285)

You can read it here [] . This movie was SO much better than Ep. 1, it was unbelievable. I even thought it was better than Spider-Man. I plan to go see it again on opening day, if nothing else for the Matrix trailer.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?