Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002) (1 Viewer)

[RobertR]

Dooku is not going to just blow two defenseless beings heads off. He's not that kind of character.

Really? But he IS the kind of character who will have them killed in heinous fashion by horrible monsters? Sorry Terrell, your "tender hearted Dooku" explanation doesn't cut it.

 

[Norm]

I thought it was Geneosians, that sent them to the arena, not Dooku.

 

[RobertR]

I thought it was Geneosians, that sent them to the arena, not Dooku.

So Dooku didn't really want them killed? I thought he looked on the proceeedings with approval.

 

[Norm]

As soon as the scene in the library ended, I immediately thought, "Well, why don't you just go there and check it out? And if it's not there, then it was probably erased." Surely Obi-Wan, a master Jedi, thought all this, too? Yet, he had to visit Yoda and the Jedi kindergarden so that they could tell him what he already knew? (I also find it odd that the supreme master Jedi Yoda is training little kiddies, a seemingly menial task for him, but that's not important).

I thought he went there to talk to Yoda to find out if the Jedi archive could be erased.

 

[Terrell]

Sorry Terrell, your "tender hearted Dooku" explanation doesn't cut it.

I never expected anything to do with explaing these prequels to you would, especially if it puts a positive spin on things.

 

[David Echo]

My Last Post explains all of these recent debates. Do yourselves a favor: read it and let's move on.
Dave

 

[Mike Broadman]

I'm sorry, but explaining a plot point by saying, "because it makes the movie good" doesn't fly. If there isn't a reason for things happening, it's a plot weakness, plain and simple. As I said earlier, I'm fine with Star Wars having plot weaknesses, but that's because I don't take it seriously.

If Star Wars is going to work at presenting a plausible and intriguing story, then they must do their best to avoid such weaknesses. For example, we got to see Obi Wan and Anakin chase the assasin in a really cool flying sequence. Why? It's not enough to say, "well, they needed a chase sequence, so they had an assassin." There has to be a plot reason, which in this case is that the assassin was trying kill the senator because of her political stance and the vote, etc and so forth. This, therefore, is not a plot weakness.

A movie cannot connect with an audience if it doesn't follow the way life works out- and I'm not talking about magic or way-out tech. I'm talking about how people behave. If it violates this "people logic," the story suffers. My understanding of Dooku's character, given what little screen time he had, made it seem absurd for him to have monsters chase the good guys. Does this make the whole movie bad? Of course not.

However, if they are not that concerned with creating an intriguing plot, that's fine, too. Then they shouldn't have spent so much time on it and just shown us fighting and spaceships.

 

[RobertR]

My last post at the bottom of 122 explains all of these recent debates.

Oh I agree, David. Like you said, it's pulp/hero/comic book stuff, which is pretty much what I said in the first place. Your explanation DOES cut it.
And I agree with Mike. Instead of saying "no, Lucas can't be weak!", accept that it's weak and move on.

 

[Norm]

So Dooku didn't really want them killed? I thought he looked on the proceeedings with approval

Where did you get That? Dooku is not going to stir up trouble with his allies, over a few Jedi, even IF he didn't want them dead! I don't think Dooku cared one way or the other whether they lived or died.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Ok, wait, I came up with my own explanation for Dooku's Batman scene:

Maybe he was ordered to do that by Palpatine/Sidious, because P/S knew that they were sending the Jedi, and he wanted to start the war.

One thing that was left mysterious was how much Dooku knew about P/S's plans, like whether the Clone army is his real enemy or not.

How about that, eh?

 

[Dennis Heller]

Didn't the stereotypical librarian tell Obi that there was no way the archives were wrong? Maybe he suspected it and wanted to see what the green guy thought.

 

[Paul Jenkins]

And I agree with Mike. Instead of saying "no, Lucas can't be weak!", accept that it's weak and move on

no thanks, it IS NOT weak, IMHO, your argument is weak and you don't listen to the numerous postings pointing that out. Move on is right, but moving on doesn't mean we think your statement of it being "weak" is in any shape, or form, correct...

 

[RobertR]

we think your statement of it being "weak" is in any shape, or form, correct...

I wouldn't expect anything else from your "we".

 

[Norm]

I may bow out of this thread, I getting tired of these half ass-ed criticisms of the movie, like why didn't Dooku just shoot them in the head. I mean come on, you can say that about any movie, its just trying to stir things up. Why This, Why That! This thread is pro vs. con only now, its not fun anymore.

 

[TheoGB]

My last post at the bottom of 122 explains all of these recent debates.

Well I don't know how your profile is set up but I only have 92 pages currently.
You can use the post number or even the link to it. Otherwise those of us who want more posts per page are just left wondering...

 

[Richard Kim]

Yeah, this back and forth stuff is getting tiresome.

And I agree with Mike. Instead of saying "no, Lucas can't be weak!", accept that it's weak and move on.

No, I don't accept it's weak. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Paul Jenkins]

Norm, no worries, it is all in fun, it is just a bunch of movie talk. If you don't have fun with it, I'd suggest you leave too.
Personally I think it is fun to have debate, even when the debate is started by a bit of trolling, as long as that debate doesn't degenerate *too* badly
These are the threads of great diversion!!.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Are people taking this personally? Why? Were any of you involved with making the film? I think it's fun to poke at some plot points; I guess I'm the only one.

 

[RobertR]

Are people taking this personally? Why? Were any of you involved with making the film? I think it's fun to poke at some plot points; I guess I'm the only one.

Actually, you're not the only one, Mike. I agree with you. Poking fun at plot points in a Star Wars movie should help people from taking them too seriously.

 

[Paul Jenkins]

ok, time for a diversion, just saw this online:

Portman shares doll sex habits; Cindy bares soul on mole; Beaver declares itchiness. Plus: Lance gets cocky in Moscow.
By Amy Reiter
2002.06.03 | Young "Star Wars" fans at a loss for what to do with their Padmé Amidala action figure might take a few tips from the woman behind Amidala, Natalie Portman herself.
Portman tells Rolling Stone magazine that, growing up, she had quite a collection of dolls and "I remember them being very sexual. I don't remember ever not having my dolls have sex with each other."
The actress says that, though all she knew how to do was rub her little dolls against one another, she did it constantly.
ADVERTISEMENT
"All my dolls would get it on together," she says. "Even the Barbies would get it on with other Barbies, and the guys would get it on with each other."
In fact, she says, "My tub toys also had sex."

grrr baby, very grrr