Well, I tried, or Ivylass finally sees Attack of the Clones

We borrowed the DVD from my BIL. Since the torrential rain temporarily knocked off our Dish, I suggested we watch it last night.

We pop in the DVD, and turn off all the lights. The kids are eating popcorn, and I start to notice some strange things.

I’m shifting in my seat, rolling my eyes at the dialogue, checking the clock. After Ani finds his mother, I turn to Ivylad and say the blasphemous words:

“Are you as bored as I am?”

Ivylad nods ruefully as the children cry out in protest. I kiss everyone good night and retire with my book without finishing the movie. Ivylad confirms that it got a little better, but not much.

I’m sorry. I guess this proves I’m a Trekkie after all.

So I’m sitting here, reading another thread about how somebody is bored about watching a movie, and halfway through, I find myself stifling a yawn. Why do I even bother opening these? I know these threads bore me. Yet for some reason I feel compelled to read it anyway. Maybe I’ll start a thread complaining about how bored I am with it. That’s sure to fascinate people. :wink:

I’m just picking on you. Millions of people didn’t like Attack of the Clones. Nothing wrong with that, but join the club, I guess. :slight_smile:

The first two movies are warmed over ass. It doesn’t make you a Trekkie. The only people I know who try to argue that they have some merit are the uber-hardcore Star Wars fans.

It wasn’t a good movie. The whole audiance was laughing at parts.

Well, I thought with all the hoopla surrounding Lucas that I’d missed something huge.

Somewhat disillusioning to see how the series is disintergrating.

Sorry to bore you, achernar. I’ll try and come up with something more interesting for my next post. :wink:

It was bad; you are normal.

I liked the opening 25 minutes or so and the closing 40 minutes or so. The middle is boring.

So, did you see “The Phantom Menace” first? If you had, you might have enjoyed ATC more, partly because you would have known more of the back story but mostly because you would have appreciated how much worse it could have been if Jar Jar had a major role.

Yes, it’s still lame. But can we talk about some of those Star Trek movies?

TW, as I started reading your post, I was ready to peg you as a fanboy (“it was a great movie - you just don’t get it”). Then you closed with Jar Jar.

Even so, there still was too much JJ in Clones.

I did see Phantom Menance, and I didn’t think it was that bad. I did cringe when I saw Jar Jar…he’s a senator now? Ick!

I wonder if I’m the only one who thought C3PO and R2D2 were just as irritating in “Attack of the Clones” as Jar-Jar was in “Phantom Menace.” They served no purpose whatsoever; they weren’t even any good at comic relief.

The factory scene was just unbelievably dreadful.

When I finally saw this movie with my sister’s kids at Christmas-time, I found it pretty tedious. The action scenes were… eh. And the romance was kind of bizarre (what with the princess’s S&M gear).

I did have one moment of amusement: During Yoda’s fight with Count Dooku, something within my geekish soul stirred and wondered: If Yoda can beat up Christopher Lee, and Lee can beat up Gandalf, does that mean that Yoda can beat up Gandalf?

Well, it was good for a laugh at the time.

Become a Tolkien geek. The movies are much better.

Uh, oh, pug, now the hardcore Tolkienheads are going to come in and tell us how absolutely awful the movies are, because they’re not JUST LIKE THE BOOKS.

Wow, I’m really surprised to hear you say this.

My experience as a Tolkien enthusiast has led me to believe that vast majority(not all, but a vast majoity) of Tolkien fans love the movies. They capture the spirit, if not the exact story, of the book.

Have you encountered the opposite?

Well, then I will make another shameful confession.

I enjoyed the LOTR movies, but I couldn’t get into the books.

For the record: I dragged myself through the books. I think of them as a “character read” (as in Calvin’s dad, if it’s unpleasant, then it builds character). I found the movies cut out all the crap and told the heart of the story. The movies are better than the books, to me. YMMV.

That said, yes. On another board I used to frequent, there was (and presumably still is) a loud, vocal contingent of people that HATED HATED HATED the movies and would tell you that the movies SUCKED because they were not EXACTLY LIKE THE BOOKS. And freely admitted that they’d hate the movies even if they were exactly like the books. Not exactly a wide sampling of opinion, but there you are.

PS: If this was just a small majority, I suppose I’ll have to stop slagging the hardcore Tolkien fans.

Ahem, small minority.

I can’t claim to speak for the majority of Tolkien fans, but those I have talked to and many of those whose opinions I have read online enjoy the movies. Their biggest complaint is having to wait a year between installments. However, it’s possible to like a movie and wish that certain things had been done differently. I can’t think of a single film of which I haven’t thought something could have been improved. Now, with LOTR, you have source material which had obsessed people for decades. It’s only reasonable people would have their own ideas of how it should be adapted. That said, Jackson is a hero to many fans for hitting the mark more often than not.

Of course, it helps if you’re old enough to remember Ralph Bakshi’s version, which makes the new films look even more brilliant by comparison.

Which brings me in a roundabout way to the OP, and my initial response. I can understand being disappointed by “Attack” if you were a fan of the original trilogy and hadn’t already had your expectations lowered by “Phantom” (midichlori-what?), but you say you didn’t think “Phantom” was that bad. Puzzling.