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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Overdetailing

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not every star wars movie has an arm amputation 

message: 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)
thread_title: Missing Characters

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Protected due to edit war 

message: What do you think? E Pluribus Anthony 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Darth_Vader#RfC.2Fpoll:_Darth_Vader.2FAnakin_Skywalker_.E2.80.93_one_article_or_two_articles.3F|'''RfC/poll''' – Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker: one article or two?]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Political atmosphere section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Wookiees

message: 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 ~~~~
*Support as requestor. joturner 22:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has already been done by someone else. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 08:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support as requestor. joturner 22:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Images

message: 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)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: 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)
thread_title: GA fixed

message: As part of this project, I've performed a check on the accuracy of several citations in this article. Results were as follows:
#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.
#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.""
#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."
#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.
#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  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)
thread_title:  Citation spot check 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Initial reviews vs. "while many..."

message: 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)
replies: text: Is the IMAX release notable from any other IMAX release that year? The Filmaker 05:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: I added a reference to the IMAX release Volatar (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMAX release? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Curious similarity! 

message: *  "ТТП vs Star Wars" article on myltik.ru
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)
thread_title:  See link 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: The information more pertains to Serenity than AOTC. The Filmaker 16:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Documentary style CGI 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: My problems with this article