Star Wars: AOTC: Unfinished business. (SPOILERS)
May 16, 2002 at 11:24 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 64

andrzejpw

May one day invent Bose-cancelling headphones.
Joined
Jun 25, 2001
Posts
6,636
Likes
10
Ok, SPOILERS. SPOILERS.

So, I've got a question. I just came back from seeing Attack of the Clones. So:

Why were the federation's army and the republic's clone army fighting?

I mean, Palpatine/Sidious sent dooku to make the federation army, right? And he also made a clone army. So, why the fighting?
 
May 17, 2002 at 12:44 AM Post #2 of 64

AtEase

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 15, 2001
Posts
114
Likes
10
Paply needed some kind of an excuse to grab power,
the robot army was the threat he needed so that he could bring in the clone army. He built two armies so that he could use one to create the appearance of a threat, o/w the senate would never have given him the authority to create an army of the republic.
 
May 17, 2002 at 1:08 AM Post #3 of 64

aos

May one day solve the Mystery of the Whoosh
Joined
Jun 21, 2001
Posts
1,841
Likes
12
I am not sure it was Palpatine who ordered the clone army! At least I didn't see any clues in the movie to that end. In any case, other than what AtEase said, I believe that he's also using the old rule "divide and conquer". By pitting powerful armies against each other, in the end there won't be any left to threaten him. You know, at some point your "allies" can turn against you so it is not necessarily good to have too many different allies...
 
May 17, 2002 at 4:27 AM Post #4 of 64

Masz

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 21, 2001
Posts
162
Likes
10
AtEase got it right. It may not be Palpatine who directly ordered the creation of the Clone army but he was definitely behind it. Remember the scene between Count Dooku and Darth Sidous? Where they discuss everything is going as planned?

Talk about the power of manipulation.
 
May 17, 2002 at 4:38 AM Post #5 of 64

Jeff Guidry

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 6, 2002
Posts
2,614
Likes
13
Basically, Sidious was creating a situation where the Senate would give him control of the republic. Dooku was fomenting rebellion to create a threat, and Palpatine was manuvering the Senate to give him temporary dictatorial powers to deal with the threat (mainly by the assassination attempts on Amidala that were blamed on the Trade Federation).

Office of Homeland Defense, anyone?
 
May 17, 2002 at 7:27 AM Post #6 of 64

aos

May one day solve the Mystery of the Whoosh
Joined
Jun 21, 2001
Posts
1,841
Likes
12
Funny thing, Dooku was NOT lying to Obi-Wan. There IS a Sith Lord controlling most of the senate
wink.gif
. Manipulation indeed!

Now this army thing is really intriguing me. It does seem Sidious knew about the army before Jedi council, but I can't believe he ordered it 10 years ago... I know they can see the future somewhat but this much premonition would be too much even for Force-users... Someone deleted planet coordinates from the library. Jedi, they said. Which one? Dooku, while he was still in? Maybe Dooku killed that other Jedi 10 years ago, the one that ordered army. But then, we know there can be only 2 Siths, so Dooku couldn't have been on the dark side then. Or is there another traitor in the Jedi ranks? I think that dead Jedi is the key to the puzzle in any case. Maybe the official books has more information...
 
May 17, 2002 at 11:48 AM Post #8 of 64

Masz

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 21, 2001
Posts
162
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally posted by aos
Funny thing, Dooku was NOT lying to Obi-Wan. There IS a Sith Lord controlling most of the senate
wink.gif
. Manipulation indeed!


I call it reverse psychology. By telling him the truth, he would think that it is not. Although it still intrigues me why Dooku said it anyway. I really wonder why?

BTW Palp=Sidious. No doubt in my mind.
 
May 17, 2002 at 1:07 PM Post #9 of 64

James

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 5, 2002
Posts
339
Likes
12
AOTC had a lot of future event mirroring (Jedi's face beasts in a gladiator setting, Padme wields a chain, Anakin gets arm lopped off, etc.). I think Count Dooku's revelation about Darth Sidious was one of them. It sounded to me that he was offering a genuine partnership with Obiwan to overthrow Sidious, much in the same way Darth Vader treated with Luke Skywalker in "Empire Strikes Back." I never figured out whether Darth Vader was being serious, and don't know whether Dooku was too, but I rather enjoyed the ambiguity.

Everyone is right about the Sidious' motivations for having two armies. To me, it also sounded as if the thinning of the Jedi Council was an intended side-effect. Windu threatens Dooku for the loss of Jedi life, and we all know that eventually the council will be winnowed down to two members. Of course, in all the books the Jedi council dies in a single spaceship explosion, but Lucas is not beholden to that.

Which reminds me, Dooku must be the Dark Jedi that dies on Dagobah. That's a battle I wish to see!

James

P.S. I also liked the idea that Palpatine was a clone of Sidious, but I think it's rather clear from Ian McDiarmid's makeup that the Senator is looking more and more like the watery, pale dictator of the later movies. His speech is becoming more reedy and sly, too.
P.P.S. I thought it was Sidious that ordered the clone army. Would make sense that he would be able to keep the clone army hidden seeing as he's been able to keep himself from the Jedi council's collective eye.
 
May 17, 2002 at 1:29 PM Post #10 of 64

Masz

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 21, 2001
Posts
162
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally posted by James
It sounded to me that he was offering a genuine partnership with Obiwan to overthrow Sidious, much in the same way Darth Vader treated with Luke Skywalker in "Empire Strikes Back."


You know something. I think you're right! Never saw it that way.
 
May 17, 2002 at 1:57 PM Post #11 of 64

session76

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Posts
207
Likes
15
Does anyone know the resolution of the digital showing of the movie?

I saw it digitally projected and it was stunning, equivalent to 35mm under intense scrutiny and flicker free and speckle free to boot. No reel changes, it was a wonderful experience.
 
May 17, 2002 at 2:07 PM Post #12 of 64

James

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 5, 2002
Posts
339
Likes
12
Quote:

Does anyone know the resolution of the digital showing of the movie?


I think it's 1280x1024. Amazingly low, no?

I envy you, session76! Going to the Ziegfield will be top priority when I go to NY later in June.
 
May 17, 2002 at 2:44 PM Post #13 of 64

session76

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Posts
207
Likes
15
James,
I just went to the TI web site and got the same answer!

I agree 1280 x 1074 is amazingly low when you compare it to the effectively 8Megapixel resolution of 35mm film. I saw it on a huge screen at the AMC empire 25 in times square and was amazed by the picture quality. Not only was it bright and flicker free but highly detailed scenes never showed any signs of digital artifacts or jagged edges.

And the entire movie is stored on a 72 gb hard drives, not too far off from being able to show these on a home theater system!

One drawback no previews!

There aren't any previews in this format, so the movie started immediately.

I loved this movie, and the technology allowed the one to dispel reality without reel changes or flicker.
 
May 17, 2002 at 3:03 PM Post #14 of 64

James

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 5, 2002
Posts
339
Likes
12
Quote:

I agree 1280 x 1074 is amazingly low when you compare it to the effectively 8Megapixel resolution of 35mm film. I saw it on a huge screen at the AMC empire 25 in times square and was amazed by the picture quality. Not only was it bright and flicker free but highly detailed scenes never showed any signs of digital artifacts or jagged edges.


session76,

Wow, I'm really looking forward to the experience. Ebert had a review of a film showing of AOTC and pointed out the especially blurry view. I think he's right, actually; my showing seemed of slightly lower resolution than usual. But I think his overall conclusion against digital movie-making is ass-backwards.

Upon further reflection, perhaps 1.3 megapixels really isn't that low. After all, even a large movie screen (but not IMAX) covers a field of view about the size of a 19-inch monitor, and 1280x1024 video is quite smooth and detailed even at that size. I think HDTV's field of view/resolution is about the same, too, or maybe a bit better.

Of course, any hard-core gamer will tell you that going to 1600x1200 and higher will result in noticeably finer detail. OTOH, perhaps a movie's inherent motion information reduces the need for still-frame detail. I dunno.

By the way, to my eye, horizontal pans are annoying flicker-y on a traditional movie screen. Did you notice any improvement on your digital viewing?
 
May 17, 2002 at 4:46 PM Post #15 of 64

session76

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Posts
207
Likes
15
That was the beauty of it,
there was absolutely no flicker, on any of the pans!

It was a stunning picture, even the non audio- video philes that i went to see the film with commented on the picture quality,

you have to find a digital theater in your vicinity and see it now.

go to http://www.dlp.com/dlp/cinema/where.asp?rid=1

to find out where to see it in your neighborhood.

I'm going to watch it in 35mm on sunday to compare, and then probably another time digitally for good measure.

May The Force Be With You!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top