Attack of the Clones (no spoilers)

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Ken Carriere

unread,
May 7, 2002, 11:24:13 PM5/7/02
to

I saw AotC this morning at a screening. Let's just say: *awesome*

A thousand times better than "Phantom Menace"

--Ken
http://www.kencar.com

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,
May 8, 2002, 11:20:09 AM5/8/02
to
<< A thousand times better than "Phantom Menace" >>

So that would still be a 'thumbs down' right? :-)

Ronald O. Christian

unread,
May 8, 2002, 11:29:37 AM5/8/02
to

That's good to know, but it's still too many zeros to the right of the
decimal.


Ron
http://roc85.home.attbi.com
"If UN peacekeeping had been involved during the US civil war,
it'd still be going on today."

Bob

unread,
May 8, 2002, 4:50:56 PM5/8/02
to

"Ronald O. Christian" wrote:

> On Wed, 08 May 2002 03:24:13 GMT, "Ken Carriere"
> <k-car...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >I saw AotC this morning at a screening. Let's just say: *awesome*
> >
> >A thousand times better than "Phantom Menace"
> >
> >--Ken
> >http://www.kencar.com
>
> That's good to know, but it's still too many zeros to the right of the
> decimal.
>
> Ron

No Ron, no. Any positive integer divided by zero is infinitely larger
than zero. Damn, I hate teaching math.
Bob

Norman Wilner

unread,
May 8, 2002, 4:51:09 PM5/8/02
to
"Bob" <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3CD98FB0...@ix.netcom.com...

> "Ronald O. Christian" wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 May 2002 03:24:13 GMT, "Ken Carriere"
>> <k-car...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I saw AotC this morning at a screening. Let's just say:
>>> *awesome*
>>>
>>> A thousand times better than "Phantom Menace"
>>
>> That's good to know, but it's still too many zeros to the right
>> of the decimal.
>
> No Ron, no. Any positive integer divided by zero is infinitely
> larger than zero. Damn, I hate teaching math.

You're assuming that the assessment of "The Phantom Menace" was positive.

Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine/MetroToday
www.zap2it.com/movies/videodvd


Dawn Taylor

unread,
May 8, 2002, 5:07:56 PM5/8/02
to

Ken Carriere wrote:

> I saw AotC this morning at a screening. Let's just say: *awesome*

I saw it yesterday. I'm very glad you had a good time. I'm glad
someone did.

> A thousand times better than "Phantom Menace"

Yeah, that's saying a WHOLE lot, isn't it?

Dawn


Ronald O. Christian

unread,
May 8, 2002, 5:48:02 PM5/8/02
to
On Wed, 08 May 2002 14:07:56 -0700, Dawn Taylor
<dta...@clackamasreview.com> wrote:

>
>
>Ken Carriere wrote:
>
>> I saw AotC this morning at a screening. Let's just say: *awesome*
>
>I saw it yesterday. I'm very glad you had a good time. I'm glad
>someone did.

I'm getting a really bad feeling about this...

Bob

unread,
May 8, 2002, 8:08:43 PM5/8/02
to

Norman Wilner wrote:

Well, I didn't think it was less than zero. I mean, hell, it was better than
Battlefield Earth or Wing Commander.
Bob


Lulu The Cow

unread,
May 9, 2002, 11:53:56 AM5/9/02
to
On Wed, 08 May 2002 17:08:43 -0700, Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>> You're assuming that the assessment of "The Phantom Menace" was positive.
>>
>> Norm Wilner
>>
>
>Well, I didn't think it was less than zero. I mean, hell, it was better than
>Battlefield Earth or Wing Commander.

No. No, it was not.

Cheers,

Todd "By comparison, I LOVE Wing Commander" McNeeley
.
email: mcneeley at enteract dot com

Lulu The Cow

unread,
May 9, 2002, 11:54:48 AM5/9/02
to
On Wed, 08 May 2002 21:48:02 GMT, Ronald O. Christian
<ro...@europa.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 May 2002 14:07:56 -0700, Dawn Taylor
><dta...@clackamasreview.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Ken Carriere wrote:
>>
>>> I saw AotC this morning at a screening. Let's just say: *awesome*
>>
>>I saw it yesterday. I'm very glad you had a good time. I'm glad
>>someone did.
>
>I'm getting a really bad feeling about this...

I hate it when he does that.

Cheers,

Todd "Kill me now" McNeeley

Bob

unread,
May 9, 2002, 3:10:20 PM5/9/02
to

Lulu The Cow wrote:

TODDY BABY. We've got to talk about priorities, and the straightening thereof.
Next thing you'll say is the STARSHIP TROOPERS was better than TPM. We both know
that would be sacrilege.
Bob


JerryD

unread,
May 9, 2002, 3:43:20 PM5/9/02
to

Nonsense. Jar-Jar took a team of trained experts to become as horrible
and annoying and gormless as he was in the finished film. Freddie Prinze
Jr, on the other hand, is a 100% NATURAL creation, and by far a greater
Stain on the world of cinema.

Or, to put it another way, in a choice between a real monster, and a man
in a cheap plastic halloween mask, I'm going to be more terrified by the
real monster. :)

Pal O' Chakotay.

unread,
May 9, 2002, 11:04:25 PM5/9/02
to
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Bob wrote:

> > Todd "By comparison, I LOVE Wing Commander" McNeeley
> > .
> >
>
> TODDY BABY. We've got to talk about priorities, and the straightening thereof.
> Next thing you'll say is the STARSHIP TROOPERS was better than TPM. We both know
> that would be sacrilege.

STARSHIP TROOPERS was better than TPM. If given a choice, which would
I watch again, ST in a minute.

I'd even watch BATTLEFIELD EARTH over TPM. At least Travolta is
fun to watch, and Jonny's silly running style is funny to watch.

Lulu The Cow

unread,
May 10, 2002, 2:51:22 AM5/10/02
to
On Thu, 09 May 2002 12:10:20 -0700, Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>Lulu The Cow wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 May 2002 17:08:43 -0700, Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> You're assuming that the assessment of "The Phantom Menace" was positive.
>> >> Norm Wilner
>> >>
>> >Well, I didn't think it was less than zero. I mean, hell, it was better than
>> >Battlefield Earth or Wing Commander.
>>
>> No. No, it was not.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Todd "By comparison, I LOVE Wing Commander" McNeeley
>
>TODDY BABY. We've got to talk about priorities, and the straightening thereof.
>Next thing you'll say is the STARSHIP TROOPERS was better than TPM. We both know
>that would be sacrilege.
>Bob

Well, let's look at it.

In Starship Troopers, Doogie Howser takes a multipointed, sharp, metal
instrument, and shoves it up the anus of a massive dung beetle, for no
reason other than to enjoy the sheer cruelty of the act.

In contrast, throughout the entire running time of SWE1:TPM, neither
Jake Loyd, nor Jar Jar Binks ever experiences any of the kind of the
ruthless anal penetration they both so richly deserved.

Based on that, I'm going with Starship Troopers as the better movie.

Cheers,

Todd "Though, Freddy Got Fingered is better than both" McNeeley

Ronald O. Christian

unread,
May 10, 2002, 10:25:05 AM5/10/02
to
On Fri, 10 May 2002 06:51:22 GMT, Lulu The Cow <nu...@myserver.com>
wrote:

>In Starship Troopers, Doogie Howser takes a multipointed, sharp, metal
>instrument, and shoves it up the anus of a massive dung beetle, for no
>reason other than to enjoy the sheer cruelty of the act.
>
>In contrast, throughout the entire running time of SWE1:TPM, neither
>Jake Loyd, nor Jar Jar Binks ever experiences any of the kind of the
>ruthless anal penetration they both so richly deserved.
>
>Based on that, I'm going with Starship Troopers as the better movie.

Well, if you're gonna be LOGICAL,....

Tom

unread,
May 10, 2002, 10:29:41 AM5/10/02
to
Lulu The Cow <nu...@myserver.com> wrote in message news:<5u6ldug946htln76f...@4ax.com>...

> On Wed, 08 May 2002 21:48:02 GMT, Ronald O. Christian
> <ro...@europa.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 08 May 2002 14:07:56 -0700, Dawn Taylor
> ><dta...@clackamasreview.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>Ken Carriere wrote:
> >>
> >>> I saw AotC this morning at a screening. Let's just say: *awesome*
> >>
> >>I saw it yesterday. I'm very glad you had a good time. I'm glad
> >>someone did.
> >
> >I'm getting a really bad feeling about this...
>
> I hate it when he does that.
>
I am very excited to see Attack, I mean there is so uch hype around
Star Wars, how can it live up completely? Lucas aditted in an
interview a few weeks ago that Phantom was too kids oriented and this
would be a bit darker. So we'll see, but I can't wait to hear those
first opening bars of music in the theater!

Lulu The Cow

unread,
May 10, 2002, 5:32:23 PM5/10/02
to

Hype has nothing to do with it. Sure, I get excited to see some films
in advance. How can I not? I love movies. But ultimately, the film is
either good or bad, regardless of my own expectations. It's just
another movie. I hope I'll like it.

I will see Clones, though I'll not be rushing out to see it. I'll
judge it when I see it, but the track record so far doesn't speak
well.

What I don't understand is why modern people, living amidst a backdrop
of media saturation, haven't evolved intellectually enough to filter
hype effectively?

Cheers,

Todd "Movies should be held apart from marketing" McNeeley

Ronald O. Christian

unread,
May 10, 2002, 5:38:27 PM5/10/02
to
On Fri, 10 May 2002 21:32:23 GMT, Lulu The Cow <nu...@myserver.com>
wrote:

>What I don't understand is why modern people, living amidst a backdrop
>of media saturation, haven't evolved intellectually enough to filter
>hype effectively?

Yeah, we outta be experts by now. I think it's because there's a part
of us that wants to believe in Great Things. Other parts of life has
let us down; only entertainment is left.


Rno

John Savard

unread,
May 10, 2002, 8:09:15 PM5/10/02
to
On Wed, 08 May 2002 21:48:02 GMT, Ronald O. Christian
<ro...@europa.com> wrote, in part:

>I'm getting a really bad feeling about this...

Well, *I'm* not ashamed to admit that I enjoyed Phantom Menace. I
thought it could have been better, and making Jar-Jar in particular
and the Gungans in general stupid did risk ruining the movie.

I think it probably *will* be a very good movie, one comparable to the
original trilogy - if not fully the equal of the first two movies in
it.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html

Lulu The Cow

unread,
May 11, 2002, 3:31:10 AM5/11/02
to
On Fri, 10 May 2002 21:38:27 GMT, Ronald O. Christian
<ro...@europa.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 May 2002 21:32:23 GMT, Lulu The Cow <nu...@myserver.com>
>wrote:
>>What I don't understand is why modern people, living amidst a backdrop
>>of media saturation, haven't evolved intellectually enough to filter
>>hype effectively?
>
>Yeah, we outta be experts by now. I think it's because there's a part
>of us that wants to believe in Great Things. Other parts of life has
>let us down; only entertainment is left.

Yeah... Well...

Damn...

You're right.

Cheers,

Todd "Guess this conversation is over :-) " McNeeley

Tyler D.

unread,
May 13, 2002, 3:27:44 PM5/13/02
to
Well, it's out. There is a 'screener' making the rounds here at the
office. The initial word is very, very positive. Apparently, it is a
welcome departure from the usual Lucas format. In fact, I'm told it
hardly resembles a George Lucas film at all. The article I read in
today's paper even featured positive reviews from Portman and McGregor
(two people who expressed disappointment with Ep. One)...which saying
a lot.


Jar-Jar is only in it for a mercifully brief cameo (and not as a comic
foil).

I am not going to see it until I can actually get into a theatre, but
I am certainly way more excited about it after hearing the authentic
buzz.

Tyler

Just Lori

unread,
May 13, 2002, 3:34:35 PM5/13/02
to
tyler...@yahoo.com (Tyler D.) wrote:

>Jar-Jar is {blah blah blah...}

You call that not a spoiler???


Not that I'm not extremely relieved, of course.


--
"My other prediction is if Jar Jar Binks does show up in the second
movie and Anakin does not cut him down with the saber i will not be
too happy." - Dan Tropea

Phil7101

unread,
May 13, 2002, 5:59:39 PM5/13/02
to
>The article I read in
>today's paper even featured positive reviews from Portman and McGregor
>(two people who expressed disappointment with Ep. One)...which saying
>a lot.
>

So the two stars of a movie say that its good? Well, there's a ringing
endorsement. (They expressed their disappointment over the first film long
after it had cleaned up at the box office).

Tara Kostezky

unread,
May 13, 2002, 7:43:35 PM5/13/02
to
"Just Lori" <80s_...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:3ce014e7...@news.cis.dfn.de...

> tyler...@yahoo.com (Tyler D.) wrote:
>
> >Jar-Jar is {blah blah blah...}
>
> You call that not a spoiler???

What is the exact opposite of a "spolier"? Because knowing Jar-Jar's not
going to be in it is whatever that is called.

> Not that I'm not extremely relieved, of course.

Me Too!1!1!

> "My other prediction is if Jar Jar Binks does show up in the second
> movie and Anakin does not cut him down with the saber i will not be
> too happy." - Dan Tropea

(This still makes me laff every time I read it. Vintage Dan.)

TK
--
i wish i knew where my giant ascii middle finger was. - marci

Arthur Levesque

unread,
May 13, 2002, 8:49:49 PM5/13/02
to
Tyler>Well, it's out. There is a 'screener' making the rounds here at
Tyler>the office. The initial word is very, very positive. Apparently,
Tyler>it is a welcome departure from the usual Lucas format. In fact,
Tyler>I'm told it hardly resembles a George Lucas film at all.

Is that a good thing? I wouldn't mind so much if it resembled (and
make at least a half-assed attempt to be consistent with) the original
trilogy.

Tyler>The article I read in today's paper even featured positive reviews
Tyler>from Portman and McGregor (two people who expressed disappointment
Tyler>with Ep. One)...which saying a lot.

It's still tough to take the word of someone involved; before a film
comes out, they usually make the rounds praising it. Then, if there are
problems, they either say "Yeah, I knew it sucked" or "Hey, it wasn't MY
fault..."
Most of the reviews I've seen boil down to: "It's not great, but at
least it's better than Episode One. But then, so's my ingrown toenail."
I have yet to see anyone praise the Anakin-Amidala love subplot; though
other facets get mixed reviews and the effects (of course) are pretty much
universally praised.

Tyler>Jar-Jar is only in it for a mercifully brief cameo

But not a terminal one. Partial credit only, Lucas.

Tyler>(and not as a comic foil).

He wasn't comic in the first one either.

Tyler>I am not going to see it until I can actually get into a theatre,

<aol> yadda yadda </aol>

I know some line-sitters. I should be able to see the opening. I
hope this time it's worth it.
--
/\ Arthur Levesque <fnord?> http://boog.org & http://DammitJa.net __
\B\ack King of the Potato People & shanana-Cobain <*> Urban Spaceman (oO)
\S\lash Sweet transvestite and member of a vast right-wing conspiracy /||\
\/ I was a lesbian before it was fashionable! My work here is done...

Just Lori

unread,
May 13, 2002, 8:57:03 PM5/13/02
to
"Tara Kostezky" <ta...@softhome.net> wrote:

>"Just Lori" <80s_...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
>news:3ce014e7...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> tyler...@yahoo.com (Tyler D.) wrote:
>>
>> >Jar-Jar is {blah blah blah...}
>>
>> You call that not a spoiler???
>
>What is the exact opposite of a "spolier"? Because knowing Jar-Jar's not
>going to be in it is whatever that is called.

Hush. I'm trolling Tyler.


This post will self-destruct in 5...4...3...2..$@%#$$%^%^&(#$&($@#*$@#$

Antifrance

unread,
May 13, 2002, 9:31:21 PM5/13/02
to
Just Lori wrote:
>
> tyler...@yahoo.com (Tyler D.) wrote:
>
> >Jar-Jar is {blah blah blah...}
>
> You call that not a spoiler???

I call Jar Jar a movie spoiler. Therefore, the lack of Jar Jar is not a
spoiler.

--
Brendan Dillon (aka Antifrance), | antif...@yahoo.com
GPG; 1SG, KPS OPC; SC, HQ, SURLI | http://www.holyducttape.com

"And Jesus said unto me 'Shake that thing!' So I did." -P&SC

WWS

unread,
May 13, 2002, 11:38:48 PM5/13/02
to

Arthur Levesque wrote:
>
> Tyler>Well, it's out. There is a 'screener' making the rounds here at
> Tyler>the office. The initial word is very, very positive. Apparently,
> Tyler>it is a welcome departure from the usual Lucas format. In fact,
> Tyler>I'm told it hardly resembles a George Lucas film at all.
>
> Is that a good thing? I wouldn't mind so much if it resembled (and
> make at least a half-assed attempt to be consistent with) the original
> trilogy.
>
> Tyler>The article I read in today's paper even featured positive reviews
> Tyler>from Portman and McGregor (two people who expressed disappointment
> Tyler>with Ep. One)...which saying a lot.
>
> It's still tough to take the word of someone involved; before a film
> comes out, they usually make the rounds praising it. Then, if there are
> problems, they either say "Yeah, I knew it sucked" or "Hey, it wasn't MY
> fault..."
> Most of the reviews I've seen boil down to: "It's not great, but at
> least it's better than Episode One. But then, so's my ingrown toenail."
> I have yet to see anyone praise the Anakin-Amidala love subplot; though
> other facets get mixed reviews and the effects (of course) are pretty much
> universally praised.

First, let me state for the record that I have not seen it. I have been
looking for mainstream reviews from outlets that are generally reliable.
(and not just fan-wanker skiffy reviews) Basically, they say that the special
FX and the climax battle with Ninja Yoda is so spectacular that it just about
makes you forget the wooden acting and the extremely poor script, not to
mention the way that apparently one of the problems with so much of the movie
being digital is that all of the actors were sleepwalking through their lines
and no one noticed till now.
--

__________________________________________________WWS_____________

Critics generally aren't impressed when most of the dialogue consists
of exposition to fill in the backstory, either.

Blarg

unread,
May 14, 2002, 8:15:35 AM5/14/02
to
On Tue, 14 May 2002 07:43:35 +0800, "Tara Kostezky" <ta...@softhome.net> wrote:

>"Just Lori" <80s_...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
>news:3ce014e7...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> tyler...@yahoo.com (Tyler D.) wrote:
>>
>> >Jar-Jar is {blah blah blah...}
>>
>> You call that not a spoiler???
>
>What is the exact opposite of a "spolier"? Because knowing Jar-Jar's not
>going to be in it is whatever that is called.

Isn't that a 'Spolier'?

>> Not that I'm not extremely relieved, of course.
>
>Me Too!1!1!
>
>> "My other prediction is if Jar Jar Binks does show up in the second
>> movie and Anakin does not cut him down with the saber i will not be
>> too happy." - Dan Tropea
>
>(This still makes me laff every time I read it. Vintage Dan.)
>
>TK

Yay!!

Blarg

unread,
May 14, 2002, 8:20:13 AM5/14/02
to
On 14 May 2002 00:49:49 GMT, meist...@boog.org (Arthur Levesque) wrote:

>Tyler>Well, it's out. There is a 'screener' making the rounds here at
>Tyler>the office. The initial word is very, very positive. Apparently,
>Tyler>it is a welcome departure from the usual Lucas format. In fact,
>Tyler>I'm told it hardly resembles a George Lucas film at all.
>
> Is that a good thing? I wouldn't mind so much if it resembled (and
>make at least a half-assed attempt to be consistent with) the original
>trilogy.
>
>Tyler>The article I read in today's paper even featured positive reviews
>Tyler>from Portman and McGregor (two people who expressed disappointment
>Tyler>with Ep. One)...which saying a lot.
>
> It's still tough to take the word of someone involved; before a film
>comes out, they usually make the rounds praising it. Then, if there are
>problems, they either say "Yeah, I knew it sucked" or "Hey, it wasn't MY
>fault..."
> Most of the reviews I've seen boil down to: "It's not great, but at
>least it's better than Episode One. But then, so's my ingrown toenail."
>I have yet to see anyone praise the Anakin-Amidala love subplot; though
>other facets get mixed reviews and the effects (of course) are pretty much
>universally praised.

Scroll down, 'cause sometimes a recount of a review could be considered a
spoiler...and I'm just wearing my usenet condom...


The reviews I've seen wished that what's-his-face and what's-her-face who play
Anakin and Amidala, respectively, would act and not be delivering their lines
like they were talking to a camera used for a documentary on some
extraordinarily boring subject.

That's the biggest complaint I've heard of so far. IOW, "The story's pretty
darn good, it's too bad the kids can't act worth a shit."

HTH,

Blarg!

>Tyler>Jar-Jar is only in it for a mercifully brief cameo
>
> But not a terminal one. Partial credit only, Lucas.
>
>Tyler>(and not as a comic foil).
>
> He wasn't comic in the first one either.

I thought he was....?

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages