Jump to content

Talk:Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Non fan in doubt

I just watched the episode III and some doubts have no t been cleared. Who paid for this clone army? How the Jedi didn´t know about it? Who was planning all this things in ten years advance?--Alexandre Van de Sande 14:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Palpatine, I would guess.... anonymous user

I'll give you a detailed guide of the Sith Conspiracy...

After Darth Maul got killed, Darth Sidious chose his new apprentice, Count Dooku. Master Sifo-Dyas, who left the council, ordered a Clone Army from the Kaminoans to to assist the overwhelmed army. Count Dooku killed Dyas to use the army to their advantage. He then snuck into the Jedi Archives and erased it from the galaxy map so the Jedi would never find Kamino. Meanwhile, a new threat arose, the Bando-Gora. Sidious, considering this as a threat, ordered Dooku to eliminate the Gora, and also find an army template. He hired many bounty hunters to eliminate their leader. Whoever did would become strong enough to be the template, which is how Jango Fett became the template. The Clones were programmed to obey any order they were given, especially by Palpatine. During the final years of the Clone Wars, Palpatine, who is in reality Darth Sidious, programmed Order 66, an order to kill the Jedi, into the Clones, which is the reason why the Sith helped the Jedi with their military. Also, some clones, such as the 501st Legion, helped Palpatine in top secret operations, such as Hammertog.

Hoped that helped (it had to of!) Bly1993 9 Nov 2005

Overdetailing

Is it just me, or is the plot summary so far much more detailed than it needs to be? This is Wikipedia, not Cliff's Notes! --Brion VIBBER, Thursday, May 16, 2002

Fair call, though AOTC's plot is bloody convoluted.

Oh, it's not that complicated. Try this (remember, Wikipedia contains spoilers!):

The galactic Republic is in the grip of a crisis; a group of systems lead by Count Dooku, a former Jedi, threaten to secede, potentially leading to a civil war. After an assassination attempt against Padmé Amidala, Senator and former Queen of Naboo and leader of the loyalist faction, Jedi Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker are assigned to protect her. While tracking the assassins, Kenobi stumbles into the secret development of a clone army, ordered mysteriously ten years ago on the Republic's behalf. Meanwhile, Skywalker and Amidala fall in love. Kenobi tracks the assassin, bounty hunter Jango Fett, from the clone army to Dooku's separatist conspiracy, which is itself building up a droid army based on the Trade Federation's technology. To counter this threat, the Senate gives Chancellor Palpatine emergency powers, with which he calls the clone army into battle; the separatists are forced to retreat, but the Jedi suffer heavy losses and the galaxy is plunged into a civil war orchestrated by Dooku and the mysterious Darth Sidious.

Sure, there are more details in there... But that's the basics. You want it all, pay your six to ten dollars and watch the darn thing. --Brion VIBBER

I've put the above into the article. For reference, the previous summary was:

Set a decade after Episode I, Padmé Amidala is no longer Queen of Naboo, but sits as a representative in a fractious Galactic Senate, leading a faction resisting the establishment of an army of the Republic to quell separatist movements. However, after a failed assassination attempt on her arrival on Coruscant, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker are sent to guard Amidala. Skywalker, now approximately 18, is nearing the end of his Jedi training and is chafing against the restrictions Kenobe and his role as a Jedi place on him. His admiration for Amidala as a child has also turned into a full-blown obsessive teenage crush.
A further attempt on Amidala's life is made, by using a droid to cut a hole in her window and releasing highly poisonous centipede-like creatures into her bedroom, and is thwarted by the danger-sensing abilities of Kenobe and Skywalker who neatly slice the creatures off Amidala's face with their light sabers. They take off in pursuit of the assassin, with Obi-Wan hanging off the flying droid and Anakin pursuing in a speeder through the city skyline of Coruscant. A spectacular pseudo-car chase ensues (which closely resembles a similar sequence in The Fifth Element), and the assassin is captured.
The chase ends up at a seedy bar, and just as the two Jedi capture the assassin, the assassin, who turns out to be a female "changeling" with the ability to transform its appearance, is herself killed by another assassin's poisoned dart. Obi-Wan retains the unusual dart.
Most important of them all, if the clones were all a Jango Fett clone. Then why didn't Obi Wan continuously be suspicious about the clone armies. Jango Fett was an enemy in the first place. So he should have assumed that the clones are too.
More to come - assistance required

That's what comes of teaching science by television!

IMHO, no summary of ATOC would be complete without mentioning that Yoda has a fight-sequnces, which looks something like "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" meets "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" :D -- Gaurav


GDFL notice: Content under 'Geonosian style execution' was moved from Genosian style execution page after deletion was threatened. To see the author history for that segment see the page history for that page. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:53, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Is it just me, or does the whole article quickly turn into an Softimage|3D advertisement? Stahob 22:31, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It should have a seperate page. HWelles 02:29, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I removed most of it. Too much like an ad. Feel free to re-add information on how it actual workds though. Pcb21| Pete 11:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't suppose it's possible for this article to say that the film is a load of crap? Adam 12:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Not every star wars movie has an arm amputation

it says under trivia that "A character has an arm amputated by a lightsaber (all Star Wars films)" Not true. unless you can prove to me in what scene in the phantom menace did ANYONE get their arm chopped off, with a lightsaber no less? and i'm sure droids don't count.

Darth Maul had his upper body, including his arms, amputated. Or, if you're an optimist, his legs and hips. :)

I wondered that too. And I don't recall anyone's arm being cut in ANH. - Sikon
Obi-Wan lopped off the guy's arm in the cantina scene. -- Norvy (talk) 18:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Missing poster

Is there some reason the movie poster is missing from this, the only one of the six Star Wars movies? 199.176.87.2 8 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

Missing Characters

I noticed that some minor characters are completely left out of the cast section. For instance Poggle the Lesser (A Geonosian). There are also Characters who I don't know the name of such as he one alien with the voice device he was constantly adjusting on Geonosis. I don't know enough about these characters to write anything about them. Could someone add some of these characters.

Sadly, certain people have voted to omit these characters from the list. Despite my protests, the majority overruled. Hmm... looks like Wikipedia is a democracy... Adamwankenobi 04:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Long digression userfied to User talk:Adamwankenobi. — Phil Welch 05:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


Protected due to edit war

All 6 Star Wars film are protected from editing. This bickering is pointless. I find your lack of good faith disturbing. For the sake of unifying discussion, please try to settle the dispute at Talk:Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Coffee 06:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

No constructive discussion is taking place, so I'm unprotecting the article. Please try to work together and reach a compromise rather than simply reverting each other's edits every day and hoping one of you gets tired. Coffee 12:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

RfC/poll – Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker: one article or two?

What do you think? E Pluribus Anthony 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Political atmosphere section

United States president George W. Bush's Patriot Act has also been equated to the policies employed by Palapatine in the climate of fear resulting from the attacks by the seperatists.

Maybe there is a similarity, but surely by the time the Act came up, AOTC was already into post production? I'm inclined to remove this bit because the rest of the section is covering influences and sources, not similarities and predictions. Timrollpickering 01:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Lucas could have been thinking of legislation in general- it doesn't necessarily have to be a reference to PATRIOT, but to its genre of legislation. Personally though I think it is more akin to Nazi legislation outlawing any but Nazi parties, but that's just me. --maru (talk) contribs 23:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wookiees

Wasn't there wookiees in the senate scene. And if that doesn't count where is the wookiee in Episode I. Jedi6-(need help?) 22:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't believe that there are Wookiees in the senate scene in this movie, but I know they are in the senate scene in Episode I when they begin to cheer "Vote now! Vote now!" The Filmaker 23:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Star Wars: Episode II Attack of the Clones → Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones — All the other Star Wars articles (Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, and Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi) have the colon after the episode number, not after the phrase "Star Wars."

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

I actually tried to move this myself about a week ago because I noticed that it was inconsistent with how the other five episodes were titled, but it kept telling me that page already existed, so I just gave up. Good luck.--Bacteria 05:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Has already been done by someone else. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 08:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Toward GA

Just missing citations, I'd add like 15 more for it to pass. Lincher 16:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

I think there definantly needs to be an image of Padme (w/Anankin)/Naboo in at least this film article. I know the fair-use needs to be low, but the first image is really bad quality, and the second poster is not that important. I won't change anything, so lets discuss. I think that AotC is best represented by Padme/Anakin/Naboo, not so much the opening chase scene, and I think that there is room for such an image. Thoughts? Cvene64 16:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • While it's not a bad idea. The best bet when it comes to images for the synopsis is to go with Revenge of the Sith article by having one image from the opening and one image from the ending (or close). I do agree that the first image of Obi-Wan and Anakin needs to be changed, but I haven't figured out what I want to put there yet. I agree that a photo of Anakin and Padme on Naboo would be a good representation of Episode II, but that's near the middle of the film would result in odd look to the text (with the way it is pushed around by the images), so I think we should find something more suitable near the end and beginning of the film. Also, I think that the Yoda images goes with the Release section well, but when we get closer to the FA candidacy, we might end up removing it. The Filmaker 23:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind the current number, but there really should be a Padme image in there. Cheers. Cvene64 13:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

I didn't want to fail this one, because this is an article that is at a FA level in some parts. However, it is sorely under-referenced, especially at the historical allusions and release sections. Without references the whole Historical Allusions section looks like Original Research. I'm thinking this should be an easy thing to fix.

On a minor note, there needs to be better picture coverage in this article as well. I don't get a sense of the film and its key moments by looking at the pictures. (For example, in Episode III, I'd think it would be the fight between Ben and Anakin.) In this article, the first picture with Ben and Anakin may need to be replaced with something else. Also, you may want to consider adding a picture to help flush out the ideas in the Historical Allusions section.

I see a lot of veterans contributing to this article, so these changes should be easy to do. I'm sure it will take no time at all! Cheers! --P-Chan 03:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

GA fixed

Nice changes. This article has all the basic components of a GA, so you got it! Good stuff guys.--P-Chan 17:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation spot check

As part of this project, I've performed a check on the accuracy of several citations in this article. Results were as follows:

  1. Footnote 2. "During filming, a well-publicized story of actor Samuel L. Jackson became wide-spread among the fan community, saying he personally requested his lightsaber to emit a purple glow, as opposed to traditional blue and green for "good guys" and red for "bad guys"."
    • Problem. From website: "Samuel L. Jackson shocked George Lucas on the set of Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones by demanding a purple shaft for his lightsaber. In an extraordinary break from tradition, the Pulp Fiction actor demanded a color that would set his character Mace Windu apart from the normal 'red for bad' and 'blue for good' system."
      • The statement in the article is that this story "became widespread among the fan community". The source provided, although describing Jackson's request, does not touch on this claim.
  2. Footnote 13. "This copy spread over the internet, and analysts predicted up to a million fans would have seen the film before the day of its release."
    • Checks out. From website: ""A million people will have seen 'Star Wars' before it's opened," predicted Bruce Forest, an independent media technology consultant and an expert on piracy. "That's never happened before.""
  3. Footnote 9. "After a teaser trailer premiered with the film Monsters Inc., a new trailer for the film aired on the Fox network on 10 March 2002 between Malcolm in the Middle and The X-Files,"
    • Checks out. From website: "The never-before-seen launch trailer for Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones will make its worldwide premiere Sunday, March 10 on FOX. Shown in its entirety, this two-and-a-half minute trailer will air between original episodes of Malcolm in the Middle and The X-Files."
  4. Footnote 24. "It is rumoured that an international internet petition by thousands of fans forced Lucas to cut them out."
    • Problem. Citation links to an online petition, but no claim that this petition caused such a scene to be cut, or that "it is rumoured" that this happened.
  5. Footnote 32. "This scene appears to be influenced by an execution method employed by the ancient Romans at the Colosseum where lions and other dangerous predatory animals were permitted to have their way with condemned prisoners."
    • Problem. No statement found at [1] appears to be the source for this claim.

Please go through the article and ensure that each citation leads to information supporting the footnoted claim. --RobthTalk 04:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Poster

Where is the promotional poster in the infobox? Since this is a featured article, it should have it. i know fair-use should be low, but a poster is needed.

Quotes

Would anyone mind if I started a section for the special quotes from the movie? BobafettH23 19:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, actually, I would mind. Not only are quotes trivial pieces of knowledge, but we already have a link to the Wikiquote page for the film, at the bottom by the External links. The Filmaker 21:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well I didin't see that. Thanks. BobafettH23 22:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Initial reviews vs. "while many..."

I can understand the reasoning here, but let's remember that either way, the sentence is supported by the following information. Therefore, we might as well keep the detailed introduction statement, which pinpoints what will be proven. — Deckiller 14:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is the following wording: "Although reviews of the film were mixed, the film generally received higher ratings than [TPM]" or somethign along those lines, in a more grammatically correct and flowing format. This format allows the succeeding sentences to easily prove the statement. — Deckiller 14:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


Again, with all of the entertainment articles on wikipedia, I don't see why so many people MUST include references to who liked the movie and who didn't. It just doesn't fit well with an encyclopedia article. They have a popular website for that kind of stuff, it's called IMDB.

I am ok with having a small line stating something like "The movie received mixed reviews from critics, but still made X ammount of money at the box office."

Then, you move on. You certainly shouldn't have anything in there talking about a minority of fans or an unconfirmed number of fans not liking certain elements or anything like that, because you can never prove it and the internet can easily blow things out of proportion.

In short, the only thing that should be discussed as far as the reaction of the film itself, is whether it was successful or not. If you single out characters and dialog, as you have done in these articles, it just looks like FAN WRITING.

You don't need to name critics, that is also pointless. Why stop at Ebert? Why not continue on and list the 500 other critics, reviews, etc?

Venom-smasher 18:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In order for an article to be considered comprehensive (one of the featured article criteria), the reaction section cannot be a mere two sentences. That is not the long-held practice here. Rather, it is customary to cite specific points of criticism from notable reviewers, the idea being that the bits cited are representative of the overall picture. It'd be a very bad idea to include all reviews and discuss them at length, just as, for example, it'd be a very bad idea to cite the opinion of every notable politician on governmental policy. However, the reader does deserve to get an idea of the major points of reviews, both positive and negative, in approximate proportion to what has actually been said. Wikipedia is not paper, so brevity is not a necessary quality. Material needs to be encyclopedic and should be to-the-point, but I think you'll find that the consensus is that a reasonable sampling of the major themes of feedback from critics not only meets both criteria, but is necessary for comprehensiveness. How an entertainment release was received is certainly a major part of its role in the bigger picture of popular culture, and it is thus germane to touch on major issues that were part of that feedback. — TKD::Talk 04:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"Many" as you stated is "a large or considerable number of persons or things", yes it is. I have the Rotten Tomatoes source to "back it up". Not only does it contain the review of almost every major film critic, but the consensus provided on the page states "Containing more of what made the Star Wars series fun, Attack of the Clones is an improvement over The Phantom Menace." This is the consensus among critics. That is a source that backs the claim up. The Filmaker 14:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought this edit war had ended months ago, it's going to end up with a 3RR violation. Please stop edit waring over that phrase and discuss it, reverting each other will get you no where. Darthgriz98 03:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Believe me, I thought it had too. However I was mistaken. I am avoiding violating the 3RR and I request that the other users help me in dealing with the issue. The Filmaker 03:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Another case of disruption will result in a 48 hour block. If s/he continues after that block, then I will bring it to AN/I for a community ban. — Deckiller 11:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

IMAX release?

No mention at all of the IMAX release in 2002? Not even the posters featuring Yoda and the "Size does matter" tagline? --JohnDBuell 04:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the IMAX release notable from any other IMAX release that year? The Filmaker 05:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Notable to IMAX, I don't know really. Studios don't break down sales figures in such a way. Notable to Star Wars fans? Perhaps. It's actually the second of three versions of Episode II (original release, IMAX re-edit (shortened for time) and DVD release). --JohnDBuell 05:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I added a reference to the IMAX release Volatar (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Curious similarity!

Look here! It's a common russian finding of a very-very curious similarity of the episode when Obi-Wan meets his friend in the bar on the matter of the poison dart that killed the assasin from Attack of the Clones with one of the episode from The Mystery of the Third Planet. Even the temper of the characters is similar, I assure you! Gromozeka is multi-handed cheerful giant and Professor Seleznyov is his old friend just like Obi-Wan. Even the waitress is pretty similar - a one-wheeled robotess (on this picture the wheel is behind Seleznyov's leg, but in the film she's rolling around on it). Truly amazing the mind of George Lucas is. :) --Yuriy Lapitskiy 07:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing, this article is just a gag (not to undervalue the talent of Lucas), but it's really are even more similarity! :) --Yuriy Lapitskiy 08:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Noir?

Neo-noir? Seriously? 217.132.26.99 21:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Documentary style CGI

I was listening to the bag track on the Serenity or Firefly DVD (can't remember which for sure, but it's probably during the initial escape sequence from the Reavers at the beginning of Serenity) and the makers were really upset that they were just pipped to the post by this film when it came to making CGI effects which looked like they had been done with a handheld camera - sudden zooms and bad tracking of the object. Unforunately, I don't know Clones well enough to be able to know exactly what they were talking about. Could be worth a mention if someone with more knowledge than me could piece together the facts. GDallimore (Talk) 08:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The information more pertains to Serenity than AOTC. The Filmaker 16:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
No it doesn't - it's an independent source (unlike, let's be honest, most of the sources used in this article) commenting on the pioneering use of special effects in this film. GDallimore (Talk) 07:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Really, it sounds more like a couple guys standing around saying "Darn! They did it before us!". To call "commenting on the pioneering use of special effects" sounds like a bit of a stretch. Unless you can provide a quote measuring up to this, it's rather trivial. The Filmaker 17:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)



My problems with this article

I have added a weasel words tag to the reaction section. I suggest looking at The Spider-Man movie articles to see how a reaction section should be done (although with hopefully less critic's sources). This is in response to all of The Star Wars movie articles, which seem to be trolled by the same users.

The fact is, if you read all of the articles from A New Hope to Revenge of The Sith, you can see a number of individual Star Wars Fans have made sure that anyone reading the article will read that The Original Trilogy is superior to the Prequel Trilogy, and that nobody liked The Phantom Menace.

Actually, I myself was the prime editor of these articles when bringing them up to featured status. And I actually liked the prequel trilogy. This goes the same for majority of the prolific editors of these articles, I believe. The Filmaker 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No professional writer would ever put anything even resembling opinions such as that in a real encyclopedia article.

Nearly every single good article on Wikipedia features some sort of Reception or Reaction section. The reaction of the public, especially with media related articles is extremely important. The Filmaker 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of IMDB as a credible source is atrocious, though it hasn't stopped anyone on wikipedia from using it as a safety net. Again, with IMDB, their ratings for movies are irrelevant because of the millions who saw said movie, how many of them actually are members and voted on these polls? Just looking at The Phantom Menace, it says 133,791 votes. How many of those are double registered users? And thats still a fraction of how many people actually saw the film.

From what I am told now, IMDB is only a credible source when sourcing IMDB related information. A high number of people use IMDB as their film outlet, more so than any other film database. The Filmaker 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly only being used to weasel an opinion into the article, by circumventing the rules, because in "wiki-land," apparently if you cite a source, no matter how ridiculous, it's concrete. Those aren't the rules, it's just a way that users have been able to weasel their opinions into an article (hence the term "weasel words").

Wikipedia is devoted to reliable sources. IMDB is only one you have cited so far as an unreliable source, however you are mistaken as it is citing IMDB related information. Also, that is not the definition of weasel words. Please read, WP:AWT. Because of that, I am going to remove the tags. If you still wish for the tags to be readded, please state why in the talk page and I will readd them myself. The Filmaker 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Infact, the whole forced opinion thing on Wikipedia is completely out of control. I for one am tired of reading articles and seeing an entire section devoted to "Some people didn't like the cute fuzzy creatures in the movie" and then citing a source where somebody said they didn't like the cute fuzzy creatures because they reminded them of a dog they used to have that chewed up their favorite pair of socks.

An encyclopedia article should be in depth, but I don't care who liked this or that, even if you have proof, which you don't. It's irrelevant and you know it. The Revenge of The Sith article actually reads amateurishly like that, saying something to the effect of "Some people thought it was the best of the three prequels, some people thought it was just better than The Phantom Menace, some other guy said it was the best film since The Empire Strikes back, and still some people thought it was on par with the other two movies."

I mean, come on, if an article can make it to featured with that in it, then obviously your article isn't 100% error proof.

You know, I'm sure that if I polled a bunch of people, I could find many people who didn't like "New York styled Pizza" because the crust was too thin and they liked more toppings. But, who cares? If I am curious about New York style Pizza and I feel like reading an article about it, why would I need to know that "some" people thought Deep Dish was superior?

Now, if thin crust pizza was found to lower your cholesterol and a certain age group liked it because of this, then that is relevant to the article. movieguy999 August 16 2007

I don't care if you don't care. Wikipedia is not here to please you and you alone. If you can explain exactly why the reception of...... well...... anything is irrelevant to a subject, than you might have a case. Despite what you may think of Wikipedia, just because you say something is irrelevant, doesn't make it true. I'm unsure of why you even want the information removed. At times you seem to want it removed for inaccuracy and other times it's because you think it is irrelevant. However, the citations are from notable media outlets. Hence it is not inaccurate. And you would be hard pressed to find anyone on Wikipedia that would agree with you that the reception to a film is irrelevant. The Filmaker 19:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars:_Episode_II_–_Attack_of_the_Clones/Archive_1&oldid=1137202658"