Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Star Wars Prequels Media Movies

Attack of the Clones Leaked 309

Posted by Hemos from the i'll-believe-it-when-i-see-it dept.
dgris writes "ain't it cool is running a purported review of Epidsode II. Harry Knowles is claiming to have gotten a secret screening of the film while at the South by Southwest festival in Austin, TX. Short story: he loves it." Like the department sez: I'll believe it when I see it. After Phantom, I'm willing to wait a bit to see it.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Attack of the Clones Leaked More

Attack of the Clones Leaked

Comments Filter:

  • Yeah uh-huh. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Romancer ( 19668 ) <{romancer} {at} {deathsdoor.com}> on Monday March 18, 2002 @09:15AM (#3180481) Journal
    And the publicity from this review is accidental too.

  • Wow! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Wind_Walker ( 83965 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @09:19AM (#3180489) Homepage Journal

    What? You say this guy saw the new Star Wars movie well before it was supposed to be displayed publically? And he has proof of this?

    Wait, you mean he has no proof? You mean he gives no sources for his information? You mean everything he says is peripheral information about the film that could have been gleaned from the trailers? You mean that there's no reason to believe that this is real?

    I'll also wager that tomorrow, we'll see a Slashdot story detailing how the review was "forcably removed" from the site by Lucasarts (who will deny any involvement, because they're not involved) and "pirated" copies of the text will circulate around the 'net, hyping up an already overhyped movie.

    This is not the review you are looking for. You can go about your business. Move along.

    • Re:Wow! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Nailer ( 69468 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @09:31AM (#3180526)
      This is not the review you are looking for. You can go about your business. Move along.

      This isn't the movie I'm looking for. I can go about my business. I'll move along now...

    • Re:Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Geek In Training ( 12075 ) <cb398@hotmaCOUGARil.com minus cat> on Monday March 18, 2002 @09:46AM (#3180576) Homepage
      Wait, you mean he has no proof?

      I just got done reading the article, and you're way off base here.

      Occasionally, some reveiwers on AICN seems liek they haven't really seen the movie. But this is Harry, the proprietor of the site. And after reading the entire review (which you clearly did NOT), it's highly probable that he has seen the movie.

      The details of the fight scenes between Yoda and the Count. The insight into Anakin being a "mass murderer."

      Trust me, he's seen the movie. And if you hadn't been in such a rush to get karma points, you might have read the article and posting something REALLY insightful.

      • Re:Wow! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Wind_Walker ( 83965 )
        I did read the entire review, and before I posted.

        Anakin being a mass murderer? He never says it happens in the film. Hell, I could have told you before Episode I that Anakin is a mass murderer.

        Yes, he gives (possible) details about the fight between Yoda and the Count. But who am I (or you, for that matter) to say that he's right? I've seen the picture of Yoda that he mentioned. Just off the top of my head, I though of this: "And you've seen the CD cover with Yoda holding the lightning? Well, in the movie he gets shocked by Count Dooku, but the lightning never penetrates him, it just leaps around his body. Yes, he's that powerful with the Force. The Yoda holds out his hands and the lightning gets coallesced into a ball, which he then sends out into space, since Jedi Masters never use the Force for harm."

        See how easy it is to fake a review? I might write one up tonight, pulling my information from fansites (I knew about Yoda's battle months ago) and from ignorant Slashbots (I'll let you figure out who) and post it!

        Oh, and I don't need Karma, I'm at the cap.

        • See how easy it is to fake a review?

          Fair enough, but I've been reading Harry Knowles' previews/reviews for four years, and every one that he has written has been factually correct.

          From what I can tell, some of his "anonymous sources" may fabricate material, but Harry does not. Whether you agree with his rather sophomoric presentation style is irrelevant to the actual descriptions of events in the film.

          When the movie comes out in 60 short days, and some of these heretofore "un-leaked" facts are revealed, we'll see. :)

          Oh, and I don't need Karma, I'm at the cap.

          Me too. It's just en vogue to accuse people of Karma Whoring. :)
          • Is it really only 60 days until Episode II hits the big screen? Man, time flies when you're playing video games. I guess I'm just naturally skeptical of anything that seems too good to be true. I also didn't know about this guy's history, and have since been corrected.

            So, maybe he's right, and if so, I'm looking forward to the movie. I don't think that I'll camp out, or see it on opening night for that matter, but I'm sure I'll get around to seeing it soon enough.

            Me too. It's just en vogue to accuse people of Karma Whoring

            Look! Your original post is at +5! Karma Whore!!!! (I always try to keep up with the latest trends) ;-)

      • Re:Wow! (Score:5, Funny)

        by TrevorB ( 57780 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @03:21PM (#3182286) Homepage
        The details of the fight scenes between Yoda and the Count

        What, are Henson and co. running out of muppets or something?

        One! Two! Three!!! Three Jedi Hah hah hah hah!

    • Longtime AICN reader (Score:5, Informative)

      by artemis67 ( 93453 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @09:52AM (#3180588)
      I don't know Harry personally, but I'm a long-time reader of AICN. IMO, Harry's got a lot more integrity than that. I would find it very hard to believe that Harry faked a review.

      • Funny.... (Score:3, Funny)

        by Kibo ( 256105 )
        It seems like something, once upon a time, someone would have said about Sony.

      • *snort* (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Pope ( 17780 )
        After being flown to New York City to see a sneak extravaganza premiere of "Godzilla," Knowles ranted and raved about how it was the greatest thing he'd ever seen.

        A week later, he saw it again, on his own dime, and proceeded to trash the hell out of it.

        AICN has ZERO integrity. Always had, always will.

      • Re:Longtime AICN reader (Score:5, Informative)

        by malducin ( 114457 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @11:28AM (#3180955) Homepage

        Well don't know him either and I don't care much for this review. But talking about Knowles, AICN and integrity, well that might be a bit of a stretch. Do you remember the OScar debacle from a few years ago or his apperance on Politically Incorrect. You should read the articles on Film Threat about him and some of his associates:

        DECONSTRUCTING HARRY: AIN'T IT UNETHICAL? (part one) [filmthreat.com]
        THE GEEKS STRIKE BACK: DECONSTRUCTING HARRY (part two) [filmthreat.com]
        AIN'T IT CRIMINAL: DECONSTRUCTING HARRY (part 3) [filmthreat.com]
        AIN'T-HE-A-FOOL: JUDGMENT DAY FOR JOE HALLENBECK [filmthreat.com]
        AIN'T IT BACKLASH: HARRY GOES ON TV, BUT TV GOES OFF ON HARRY [filmthreat.com]
        HARRY & ME [filmthreat.com]

        I mean if is willing to pimp a script from one of his friends without telling anyone, it's abit of a stretch to talk about integrity and his site. Maybe instead of begging for presents he should put ads like Slashdot.

        • Re:Longtime AICN reader (Score:5, Interesting)

          by artemis67 ( 93453 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @12:39PM (#3181258)
          Well, I'm not going to get into a lengthy defense of Harry because, like I said, I don't know the guy. However, just reading that first article you linked to is SUCH A BLATANT HATCHET JOB BY A COMPETITOR that it's downright silly. I mean, one of their points against AICN is (and I quote), "Really bad writing". Huh?!? Is that proof of his lack of ethics or proof that FilmThreat despises AICN? (Probably the latter.) In another part they blast AICN for using psuedonyms like Moriarty and Elektra, saying that "they might be studio hacks," but then a few paragraphs later go on to identify Moriarty as Drew McWeeny, an AICN staffer. So, which is it? Is Moriarty a "studio hack" writing puff pieces or an AICN staffer? (Everyone at AICN knows he is the latter.)

          The fact that the half-dozen tirades you linked to all came from FilmThreat tells me that they have an axe to grind. Probably they are just trying to siphon off users from AICN.

          Quite a sad way to build an audience.

    • Re:Wow! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by erasmus_ ( 119185 )
      Oh please. Harry Knowles probably sees more prerelease movies in year that I will in my life, just because that is his business and he has a ton of industry connections. He would not post a review to lie to people, it's not like he needs even more readers. Why does a slightly advance review of a hotly anticipated movie bring the cynics and doubters out of the woodworks? Now if only I could get to the actual site to read it.

    • Re:Wow! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by BoBaBrain ( 215786 )
      General comments along the lines of "Ani is dangerous" and "Ben is cool" don't give much away, but Harry does describe one or two small scenes which were not in any of the trailers. "Jar Jar lets the jedis (2 Jedi, 1 Jedus?) into a room" can be verified. For the moment, my money's on Harry.

    • Re:Wow! (Score:4, Funny)

      by Paradise Pete ( 33184 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @10:48AM (#3180806) Journal
      I'll also wager that tomorrow, we'll see a Slashdot story detailing how the review was "forcably removed"

      Given that this is Slashdot, it probably will say "forcably."

    • This isn't flamebait. Flamebait seeks to start a flame war. This is not a flurry of insults designed to provoke attacks on the participants' mothers. This is what's known as SARCASM. Sarcasm is allowed in /. The point of this post was to show how factually baseless the entire story was. I wish /. had more sarcasm to tear down all the people who post as if they know what they're talking about, but don't really have a clue. They only spread misinformation and make work for those who have to correct them.

  • Grain of salt, but don't dismiss entirely (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    A lot of weird shit happens at SXSW. While at first I'd be quick to dismiss something like this, stranger stuff has happened at SXSW (i.e. big name bands like REM and Green Day playing cameo shows in no-name bars) and pretty much all the big movie execs are in town to check out some of the new talent. I've lived in Austin for 3 years, and SXSW is when all the really strange "I can't believe that happened" stuff happens. Now, this guy could just be talking out his ass, but I wouldn't dismiss him totally. Lots of under-the-table stuff happens at SXSW, so even if someone said Jesus Christ had come to earth to play a show at Emo's, I wouldn't flat out dismiss it. Anyway, I'm curious to see how Ep 2 turns out, so I guess the only way we can know if he's telling the truth is to wait for the damn movie. ;)

  • pretty reliable... (Score:5, Informative)

    by dioscaido ( 541037 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @09:33AM (#3180535)
    I've been a follower of Harry for many years. When he was an unknown, he was a fantastic source for Episode I rumors. Now that he is 'famous' his connections have increased exponentially, and I find their reviews and rumors to be pretty reliable. I don't doubt he got to see it. A months ago they had a full script review and, surprise, the newest trailer confirms what they wrote. As to whether its any good, I have to agree with a previous poster that many reviews are more fanboy slobbering than reviews, but I'm a fanboy so I usually aggree with what they say!

    • Mmm, all true, but the big issue that I have with Harry is that everybody else in the entire business has to buy for their access by writing positive reviews. Harry wants us to believe that he's different, because he started out different.

      But the special access he gets now, teamed with the apparent inconsistencies of his tastes, the increasing number of rave reviews of big films (I know he likes movies, but even so...) and if nothing else the plain old fact that his site is sponsored directly by the owners of the films that he is reviewing (and AOL-Time Warner, I notice) mean that the only reliable information that you can get from Harry's reviews is an insight into Harry.

      I really is a damn shame. AICN used to be a great site when Harry did things the hard way. But as soon as it started attracting enough eyeballs for Harry to start receiving legitimate invites, it effectively removed the point of its own existence. In fact, I mostly just read it now for the trolls, who tend to be a lot more amusing and vitriolic than the goober subspecies on Slashdot. ;-)

  • You know, (Score:5, Funny)

    by yellowstone ( 62484 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @09:38AM (#3180548) Homepage Journal
    When I saw this, I screamed like a little girl. I mean it was like Uncle Tony grabbed my pantied ass. I jumped about 12 feet up in the air and squealed. WHAT A THRILL!
    When people say "too much information", this is exactly what they're talking about.
  • ...that said allot of review sites don't have time to watch all th movies and review all the products, so they will sometimes just grab some basic info on the product/movie and completely bullshit the review just for the sake of having a review published on that particular product. I am not saying every review site/group does this, just that it happens more than most would expect.

  • Harry Knowles has zero credibility (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18, 2002 @09:46AM (#3180575)
    "Leaked copy" my cowardly yellow anonymous ass. "Planted copy" is more like it. Lucas is obviously scared by the success of the LOTR and Matrix franchises, and is desperate to drive up those opening weekend grosses (since that's all the big-budget movies really care about anymore), so he's pandering to the fans he drove away with "Phantom Menace" by having Knowles rave about "Clones" on the internet. Don't forget that Knowles is the same guy that raved over Phantom Menace, raved over the Emmerich/Devlin debacle Godzilla, raved over Armageddon and even admitted liking Battlefield Earth before later retracting the positive review. He's the go-to guy for studios that want to target the geek demographic, because he's the Mikey of the cinematic world.

    (He'll also print anything on his tabloid website without bothering to fact-check in any capacity. I tested this once by making up the most outrageous thing possible and sending it to him in a drunken fit - do a search on aintitcool.com for "mammoth".)
  • People still pay attention to that site? I thought they'd been completely discredited when Harry admitted to accepting gifts in exchange for pre-release hyping of crappy movies.

    When it first started gaining popularity (or at least when I first noticed it) circa 1998, I found it to be juvenile, fan boy garbage and almost entirely apocryphal or at least wildly innaccurate (to quote D Adams). I'm glad to see it hasn't changed. I'll stick with hollywoodbitchslap.com, myself.

    • When it first started gaining popularity (or at least when I first noticed it) circa 1998, I found it to be juvenile, fan boy garbage and almost entirely apocryphal or at least wildly innaccurate (to quote D Adams).

      I'm glad to see you think so highly of it. Sortof reminds of a geek gossip site in a way. Even if he has 'connections', his style is disturbing at best.

  • Harry is full of shit. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Picass0 ( 147474 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @09:56AM (#3180603) Homepage Journal
    He probably saw it. I won't argue that.

    But his opinion is crap ever since he claimed that he "cried at the end of Armagedeon". What a sell out. They were his site's biggest sponsor at the time.

    I shit you not.

  • Sorry, but Harry lost his credibility years ago (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @09:58AM (#3180613) Homepage

    Sad to tell, anyone who's followed Harry's fortunes over the years has seen him metamorphosise from a rebel outsider into a minor celebrity, feted by both individual directors and (gasp) Big Bad Studios just like any other influential mainstream reviewer. Even now, Harry still (very occasionally) gripes about mainstream reviewers, while at the same time accepting the exact same special access to sets and screenings. The only difference is that Harry explains exactly how the whole sordid business works, with reviewers buying themselves celebrity status by giving good review-bites that guarantee that their name will go up on a poster or trailer, thereby elevating them into more expensive and high class whores. And yet despite receiving the rewards, Harry would like us to believe that he is still untainted by the influence and can be trusted. This idea seems to flow from the fact that Harry explains the context behind each viewing (whether you want to hear it or not) and writes informally. It's superfically convincing, but the style of presentation is irrelevant other than for entertainment value, it's the substance that matters for a reviewer.

    I am simply unwilling to believe the spy-games circumstances that Harry claims. If he has seen this film, it is with the full sanction of Lucasarts, on the implicit or explicit understanding that he would give it a rave review, and that he would imply that it was a rogue showing. And note carefully, he leaves us to infer that by describing his feelings (which nobody can prove or disprove), but never actually makes a factual statement to support it. You have a think about that.

    Don't get me wrong. Perhaps it is a good movie and an honest review. But Harry can simply no longer be trusted. There are just too many examples of him raving about movies to which he has received special access for him to be a credible independent reviewer any more. I won't claim he has sold out, because he never claimed to want to be outside the system. In fact, he has made every effort to insinuate himself into the whole sorry cycle of review-reward, and I think this may very well be his crowning glory.

    Sorry Harry, you used to be someone I could trust. Now you're just a shallow parody of Comic Book Guy. The circle is complete; now you are the studios' bitch. Ain't it ironic?

    • You conveniently forget about the hundreds of reviews he's done of big studio movies where he complains about how awful they are.

      Oftentimes basing this solely on the script (Scooby Doo, anyone?).
    • You have to understand Harry in order to get the substance from his reviews.

      Harry has a deep seated and pathological NEED to absolutely love every film he watches. His desire for this is so strong that within about 15 minutes of viewing a film he will find the proper mindset in which to view it. (Mindsets being in this case the point of view that one should approach a film with in order to obtain the most enjoyment from it.)

      Harry has never once pretended not to want or use the "special access" and preferred treatment he gets from studios. Heck, he delights in it far more than any other reviewer I've ever seen, like a kid at christmas. That's part of the game. The one thing Harry does do is incinerate films he doesn't like, special screenings be damned. Just look at his review for Rollerball 2000 if you want a prime example. Out of 10 movies he gets "special access" for, 1 is awesome, 2 are good, 5 suck in one way or another, and the rest he never reviews since they are a waste of time.

      The only real problem you get reading Harry's reviews is that sometimes it's just not possible to get into the mindset he does to enjoy a film, so you end up with Harry giving a good to glowing review for a movie that to a non-film geek is a pile of crap (Godzilla 2000 for example). He's gotten better at knowing when this is happening lately and you'll find his reviews peppered with "If you don't like x you'll hate this" or "If you like y then this is a lot like it".

      And get off with this betrayal thing. I get far, far better reviews from Harry and Moriarty on AICN then I do from all other film sites combined. You're coming across as a bitter old school AICN poster who feels robbed because he went to see a movie that Harry recommended and couldn't get into it. No reviewers are right all the time. Feeling betrayed for eight bucks is a little dramatic. It's like all the punks who think they were betrayed by Green Day when they ditched the punk rock, and all the old slashdot posters whining about how much the site sucks nowadays.
        • You're coming across as a bitter old school AICN poster who feels robbed because he went to see a movie that Harry recommended and couldn't get into it

        Mmm, I did give that impression, but it's not at all true. I don't spend that much time on AICN, I've just been dipping into it for years, and reading the reviews casually. I only see movies based on personal recommendations from friends, never based on professional reviews. My point is that Harry's stories (I won't call them reviews) have gone from enthusiastic but informative to pure solipsism, where the entire point seems to be to get across exactly how inside Harry is. See the bizarre story of Blade 2 [aintitcoolnews.com] for a perfect example.

        Sure, Harry is perfectly honest about his subjective ramblings, and he's never less than entertaining, but just because you like his style doesn't mean that you have to give credit to his substance.

        It's like a politician announcing a tax rise; you'll probably get an anecdote about how badly the money is needed, and how much the polician regrets doing it, and so on. All of this is perfectly true, but perfectly irrelevant; the only salient point is taxes are going up. Similary, Harry can write five hundred words about how hyped he was, or who invited him, or what he had to eat that day, or how hot the chick in front of him was and how much she wanted to ride his 400lbs carcasse like a bucking bronco, but that's just spin. The beef is: what was the movie like. And I'm finding that increasingly Harry just doesn't say, although he's becoming better and better at covering that up.

    • A lot of people are complaining like you are, but yours was the first message I read so I'll reply to it.

      You people seem to have the same mentality about movies as you do software. If it comes from a big company with a big budget it must suck. I don't understand that, but I don't have to.

      The thing I find interesting about your comments on harry is that you don't compare a good review from harry to whether the movie turned out good. You compare it to whether he had special access.... Who cares if he had special access to the film. What is important about a reviewer is if his/her reviews are accurate. Or, more to the point, accurate to the way you see things.

      It is great to find a reviewer that seems to reflect your tastes, and if the one you are reading doesn't then don't read them.

      I don't understand people who hate something and keep subjecting themselves to it just to complain.

  • Harry needs another spanking (Score:4, Informative)

    by Demona ( 7994 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @10:02AM (#3180629) Homepage
    Guess the first [filmthreat.com] and even the second [filmthreat.com] weren't enough for him.

  • OK, people, reality check:

    1. The film isn't done. As is typical with effects-laden material, there are still many shots that are not "high-res" yet.
    2. Why in the hell would anyone at Lucasfilm be attending the indie South by Southwest convention? Are we to insinuate that someone other than Lucasfilm has a cut of the movie?

    There is no doubt that some people have seen the movie. But this was just a rough cut. If Harry said that he was screened a rough cut, maybe I would believe him. The fact of the matter is, there is nothing is his review that hasn't been leaked in the spy reports on TheForce.Net, or in the "scriptament" that is floating on the Web.

    • If Harry said that he was screened a rough cut, maybe I would believe him.

      From the end of the review:
      Now the cut I saw was still a bit rough around the edges, but folks...I can't wait to see this on the big screen complete. To see what gets cut, what gets changed, what I notice when watching this movie the way Lucas meant for people to see it.

      He says right then & there that he was not viewing a final cut of the movie. Most likely, this will be like TPM, and not be complete until just before it hits the box office.

      I'm not saying the review is true or not, but he does say it's not the final cut.

  • I Doubt He Saw It (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Spencerian ( 465343 )
    There are many simple reasons why, if Ocaam's Razor were applied (and without any lubrication whatsoever) to this.

    While I suspect that Harry has read of things from the movie (of that, things are leaked like crazy: visit http://theforce.net for lots of stuff), it is HIGHLY unlikely that he's seen the movie in its final form. Why?

    Because, according to LFL, the movie still has a lot of post-production work (the CGI) to be done. In fact, the latest preview is missing a few key pieces...watch the last scene where 14 Jedi are on their last stand, surrounded by a lot of aliens and battle droids. Funny that the Jedi are reflecting blaster shots which come from nowhere.

    The movie isn't complete. I checked my ass--it seems that someone has been trying to blow smoke up it.

    • Re:I Doubt He Saw It (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tswinzig ( 210999 )
      While I suspect that Harry has read of things from the movie

      Yeah, like the script, which he reviewed.

      it is HIGHLY unlikely that he's seen the movie in its final form

      Except that he's never been shown to be a liar before, so why risk it now?

      Because, according to LFL, the movie still has a lot of post-production work (the CGI) to be done. In fact, the latest preview is missing a few key pieces...watch the last scene where 14 Jedi are on their last stand, surrounded by a lot of aliens and battle droids.

      Perhaps that is why he said this in his review:

      The movie was not complete. There were moments where the effects were quite rough, but the work that was finished, was beyond reproach.


      Aside from that, if you actually applied Occam's Razor as you claim, the simplest explanation is that he DID see the movie. Not that there is this major conspiracy for him to write a fake review.

      • I hate Occam's Razor. It's really quite useless.

        What's simpler, he decided to write a fake review based on information already available (scripts, preview, etc), or that some Lucasfilm goons dropped a secret note to him at a book signing, directing him to go to a certain hotel room at a certain time (Would YOU take such an invitation from a stranger? Sounds like a recipe for an asshole-widening you didn't ask for) to give him a super-secret viewing?

        I'm not making any claims one way or the other...I've never read this guy's reviews before (or if I did, didn't really notice the author), and I'll go see the movie when it comes out. But be careful with Occam's Razor...it's really all in *how* you state the options. Just about anything can be phrased such that it sounds simplistic, and just about anything can be broken down into its basic elements (plus the occasional dash of paranoia) and sound horrendously complex.

  • My prediction (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Jucius Maximus ( 229128 )
    I think one element overlooked by most of us in this series of prequels and even their effect on Ep4-6, is a small event in Episode I. This is not mentioned in the review the guy wrote but I am SURE that this will effect ep2-3 and I want to mention it none-the-less (so that when I'm right I can refer back to this post on slashdot ;-)

    Consider the conglomeration of 'Force' and 'Fate' that surrounds the events in these movies. Think about 'Destiny' and 'Prophecy.'

    Now consider that moment in Episode 1 where Qui Gon Jinn says that he will gamble the racing pod against the freedom of Anakin and his mom. Watto will only gamble against one of their freedoms and rolls the chance cube to see which. Qui Gon uses the force to ensure that it is Anakin whose freedom is gambled (and won) in the pod race.

    Now think about the results of Anakin being taken from Tatooine and going with Obi Wan. Think in the scope of all 6 movies.

    You see, the whole string of events that unfolded (will unfold) in episodes 2 and 3 plus ep4-6 that we've already seen are a result of this. But was it 'Fate' or 'Destiny' that made resulted in the chance cube rolling the way it did, or was it those things that made Qui Gon use the Force to free Anakin? Did Destiny guide the Force, or did the Force guide Destiny?

    I think George Lucas in brilliant in this, as sooner or later, we will all realise that only because of Destiny and the roll of a chance cube was an Empire built and defeated, the way of the Jedi preserved, and Evil defeated once more. That, my friends, is what can only be produced from the mind of a master storyteller.

    George Lucas, I applaud you.

    • But how much directional emphasis was put on the cube and Qui Gon's role? Way too little! That's where I think Lucas squandered the pivotal element of his entire six-work saga. don't you think Lucas should have developed Qui Gon a little more than just depicting a long-haired, somewhat rougish, police-cop? i mean, the entire empire is a result of his actions, to make him such a flat character seems to me like an actual lack of director foresight.

      imo: lucas is a better special effects directory than story teller. you made a really interesting observation so you might enjoy this: watch bergman's "seventh seal" and see if you agree how little time Lucas spent developing the characters. this exercise makes me see StarWars more like a soap opera than cinema.

    • I like what you noticed.

      My only problem is your inference that if Anakin had been left behind or not become involved in later events, that the whole of the univers would be different. Do you think that Sidious would just stop and fail without Vader? Wouldn't he find another apprentice and go on about his business of conquering the galaxy?

      Sure, it would be a major change for the particular people and events of this series of stories, but probably not a big shift in the overall history of the timeline.

      I think of Asimov / Harry Seldon and Psychohistory. Small groups of people may affect small events, but the greater line of history has at most a minor perterbation and most likely no real change at all.

      I always think of this when I here people talk about how one little thing would change the world. They usually think in terms of "all other things remaining the same, but this little change". It doesn't happen that way. If you change one thing, then everyone around it is also changed and adjusts to the new situation, and then persues it on new terms.

  • Hypocracy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Wind_Walker ( 83965 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @10:15AM (#3180682) Homepage Journal
    It never ceases to amaze me how quickly Slashdot visitors forget their animosity towards the MPAA.

    We have countless stories proclaiming that the MPAA is destroying Fair Use, that they're devil spawn, that thousands of loyal Slashdot readers are boycotting the MPAA....

    But then, Star Wars comes out. Lord of the Rings comes out. Resident Evil comes out. And all of the sudden, you're forking over your hard-earned money to these devils.

    I have not seen a movie (aside from free TV movies) in the past year and a half. And I won't. I have scruples.

    • Not necessarily hypocrisy... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GeekLife.com ( 84577 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @10:38AM (#3180757) Homepage
      Possibly different people. Believe it or not, slashdot users are allowed to have different opinions from one another, even if it's rare to see them expressed.
    • I totally agree. I am advocating a boycott of SW, simply because geeks are such a large part of the audience. And, if you can boycott that, you can boycott anything.

    • Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tswinzig ( 210999 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @10:56AM (#3180832) Journal
      It never ceases to amaze me how quickly Slashdot visitors forget their animosity towards the MPAA.

      And it never ceases to amaze me how a reader of slashdot can assume there is no plurality here, amongst at least half a million others. We don't all harbor a blinding hate of the MPAA.

      I wish the MPAA would drop their stance on a lot of issues. They wish I would stop using DeCSS to view DVD's on alternate OS's. They wish I would stop using Morpheus to view certain things.

      But that doesn't mean I won't go and entertain myself for $8.

      I have not seen a movie (aside from free TV movies) in the past year and a half. And I won't. I have scruples.

      You are free to protest it, just don't expect EVERYONE on slashdot to do the same. And because one part of slashdot is like you and complains loudly, don't expect another part of slashdot not to like and discuss upcoming movies.
    • But then, Star Wars comes out. Lord of the Rings comes out. Resident Evil comes out. And all of the sudden, you're forking over your hard-earned money to these devils.

      Hey, where does it say in the review that Harry paid the MPAA for the the screening? Score one for our team!

    • Re:Hypocracy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Midnight Ryder ( 116189 ) <midryder.midnightryder@com> on Monday March 18, 2002 @12:13PM (#3181131) Homepage

      I don't remember ever saying that I was going to boycott the RIAA or MPAA. Heck, I don't even remember a general consensus on Slashdot so far that said that the however many hundred thousand readers of Slashdot was going to boycott the MPAA.

      Heck, I don't see a general consensus on /. about ANYTHING! That's why it's such a great place for discussion - otherwise CmdrTaco would post an article, we'd all agree with it, and move on. No discussion would be had. Instead we have tons of people with diverse beliefs and ideas exchanging them. Sometimes it's meaningful, sometimes it's just a flamewar.

      Me personally, I go to the movies every weekend. I don't boycott the MPAA, because I know they will just use it for an example of how the "Evil Internet and P2P File Sharing Applications Are Killing The Industry". I spend effort instead with making sure people know what's going on, and contacting my Congresscritters (the people who make the laws that protect the MPAA), and encouraging others to do the same.

      I somewhat boycott the RIAA, but, if I download an MP3, like it an enjoy it, I buy the CD. No need to FURTHER fuck the artist. Bad enough they don't make much money from the CD I purchase. Again, I spend my efforts differntly, trying to change the system with what little noise I can make.

      I use both Open Source (OpenBSD and Linux) and Close Source (Windows 2000 and Amiga OS) Operating Systems. I write Closed Source applications, but, prefer Open Source tools (I'm a game developer by night, Industrial Automation programmer by day) I'm working towards the idea of decaying my games into GPL'ed code after a certain timeperiod so that others can continue to enjoy my games long after they have been released - but one of the important issues is making enough money to continue to make games, so up front Closed Source is an important issue. Long term, Open Source is also very important.

      Ok, why the rambing additional information that has nothing to do with the MPAA Boycott? To illustrate something - people on /. are different from each other. Not all of us represent the same thing. Not all of us post our opinions on every article, agreeing or disagreeing with what's said (in fact, if we did, no one would bother to get any work done since there would be something like 200,000 reponses PER ARTICLE. Ouch. And the /. servers could hardly handle it!)

      So don't stand up and make a blanket statment that all /. readers (or even editors. Yeah, it's rare that I stand up for them ;-) agreed to the idea of boycotting the MPAA. Or the RIAA. Or Microsoft Products. Or... anything. Because we are all individuals, with different ideas, and damned well don't agree on ANYTHING! ;-)

    • Re:Hypocracy (Score:3, Insightful)

      by alexjohns ( 53323 )
      First, it's hypocrisy. Second, there's about 750,000 unique /. readers on any given day. To think that we all have the same feelings about everything is woefully narrow-minded. Thirdly, we can disagree with something and yet still support it.

      I disagree with some things the US Government does and yet I still pay my taxes and vote, and at this point have no plans to emigrate. If I disagree enough, I'll write letters or email. The same with the MPAA. I see about 2 movies a year at the theaters and I rent about a dozen (aside from all the ones we get for the 3-year-old.) If they do something I don't like, I let them know. That doesn't mean I should stop giving my money to Ridley Scott or John Waters.

      Support the movies/actors/directors that you like. Let your elected representatives hear about your disapproval of them trying to hijack our culture's intellectual property. I watch independent flicks (on Bravo, IFC, Videos, etc.) and I support small-time independent music-makers, especially foreign ones like Wes and Saliif Keita. I don't buy 'produced' bands like N'Sync and such. Support the bands that spent years playing bars before they were discovered. Those are the 'real' musicians.

      That's really about all you can do. Boycotting can be an effective strategy, but I don't believe you're even on the radar screens yet. Perhaps if their control measures become more draconian there will be enough of a groundswell of support. Until then, I'll continue to consume in small, carefully regulated dabs of consumerism and let any displeasure be heard by my senators and congresspersons (who, really, actually, do listen, BTW.)

    • I haven't got a problem with MPAA members showing movies in theaters. I pay the ticket price, I get to see Ian McKellan on the big screen in the company of a hopefully enthusiastic audience. Fair bargain.

      I do have a problem with the way they are acting with respect to digital media and fair use. So I stopped buying their digital media, and I intend not to buy any until the fair-use-limiting features have been removed. That means I may not be buying the LOTR:FOTR DVD when it is released. But if the fair-use advocates win out in the end, it will be available on unencumbered media sometime in the future. I will buy it then.

      Until then, there is Morpheus, or whatever, if I really want to have the damn thing that badly. But I don't. The books are more than a fine substitute for the DVD, and they happen to be completely unencumbered by fair-use-prevention technology.

      I don't think I could stay awake to read a novelization of Episode 2, so there is probably no dilemma presented there...
    • It never ceases to amaze me how quickly Slashdot visitors forget their animosity towards the MPAA.

      It never ceases to amaze me how many people assume Slashdot is a perfectly unified group of people who methodically push a particular point of view.

      Believe it or not, Slashdot does not have an agenda, especially if you include the visitors. If it had an agenda, it would be a heck of a lot more coherent.

      The destruction of fair use and expansion of copyright is something that interests lots of nerds, so Slashdot ("News for Nerds") covers. Star Wars is something that interests lots of nerds, so Slashdot (Still "News for Nerds") covers it. Some nerds are worried about copyright expansion and boycott the MPAA. Some don't really care and don't. Some feel that the best answer is somewhere in the middle. Berating Slashdot and Slashdot's visitors for be human, for being different, for not being perfectly uniform Slashbots is silly.

      I'm glad you've found your own solution. You're boycotting the MPAA's works. Great. You probably would like to convince more people to follow your path. Equally great. Perhaps you would attract more people if you didn't insult their behavior.

  • Something smells like a motherboard thrown in a campfire here.

    The language used in this review is reminiscent of the anarchy t-philes that kids used to write back in the heyday of the BBS scene. For me at least, that in itself is enough to cast doubt upon the review. It comes across as juvenile and written to whet the appetites of fans, and not much else. If it were written in a more erudite manner, I might give it a bit more creedence.

    I also wonder exactly how far along Lucarfilm is in the post-production process. Would it be in a sufficiently complete state to watch easily (like the Buckaroo Banzai workprint that's made its rounds for almost twenty years now)? I don't know for certain, it's complete enough to have a trailer. How much more I don't know.

    I don't know.. this seems a bit too pat. It's at the right time to cause a fervor, the timing's too neat.

  • Guys, guys, guys... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by aziraphale ( 96251 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @11:04AM (#3180849)
    Listen to yourselves. You really think Lucasfilm aren't aware that the majority of the fan community has decided this film will suck? That Lucasfilm doesn't care what the mass of fans thinks about this upcoming film? That Lucasfilm isn't terrified that they won't break box office records opening weekend?

    The ONLY way they can make the impact they want is to do everything in their power to make people see that the film isn't going to be crap. To that end - the latest trailer is an action packed monster that gives away the entire plot; they dragged Harry Knowles into a room and showed him a copy of the rough cut; they are willing to leak the entire plot if it will persuade the average Star Wars punter that he will see Star Wars regain its status as quality entertainment.

    And you know what - I bet it'll have some effect. I'm more inclined to go see the film after the last trailer than I was after 'Forbidden Love'. I'm even more inclined to go see it after reading Harry's review. I'm probably not alone.

    Why assume that Harry hasn't seen the film when it makes perfect sense for Lucasfilm to want him to see it? They just upped their box office receipts...

  • Yeah right (Score:4, Funny)

    by CMiYC ( 6473 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @11:16AM (#3180905) Homepage
    Judging by the quaility of the site, and what I know about SXSW, I'm not buying it. I'm not sure I understand how anyone at SXSW would have acquired a copy, and I'm further uncertain why this guy was so cool he got to see it. If you look at the comments after the review, I understand why he threw this together. The people who read his site often are all applauding him. So he's riding on a cloud right now because he is "so cool." Ain't that cool.

    And if by the 1,000,000th of a percent of a chance that I'm wrong, oh well. The guy still needs to learn to use a smaller font.
    • I don't know if he saw the movie or not but Harry Knowles is probably "cool enough" to have a source that would show him the film.

      Hollywood studios are actually scared of him, or at least of the power he seems to wield on his site... He has become something of a celebrity in the movie world... Hell, Michael DeLuca (head of production at Dreamworks - was at New Line during LOTR production) wrote the introduction to Harry's book...

      I think him seeing the movie is entirely possible, but if so a well placed publicity stunt by Lucasfilm...

  • Of course Palpatine is evil! (Score:3, Funny)

    by reachinmark ( 536719 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @11:17AM (#3180910) Homepage
    What is Harry Knowles smoking?

    ... remember thinking that Lucas could be soft in the head for trying to fool the audience into thinking Palpatine isn't Sidious. I mean we can see that in the credits. What the hell? Right? See that is so like a self-centered audience. To sit there and think they are the center of the universe. The Palpatine-Sidious thing from the first film... The trade dispute...

    Of course Palpatine is evil, doesn't anyone remember Return of the Jedi anymore? (whas it *that* bad?) Who's that dude zapping Luke with the magic bolts of lightening at the end of the film? Could it be.. "Emperor Palpatine"!?

    • Of course Palpatine is evil, doesn't anyone remember Return of the Jedi anymore? (whas it *that* bad?) Who's that dude zapping Luke with the magic bolts of lightening at the end of the film? Could it be.. "Emperor Palpatine"!?

      I'm afraid you're the one who doesn't remember Return of the Jedi anymore. The word "Palpatine" is never uttered in any of the classic trilogy movies. The Emperor is referred to only as "The Emperor."

      The novelizations, comics, and RPGs are a different story, however.
      • What are you talking about? Even the slightest Star Wars fan knows that the Emperor's name was Palpatine. Are you saying that they are different people!?

        Check out the Palpatine bio [starwars.com] on starwars.com. The relevant quote is: "In the Death Star, high above the Battle of Endor, Luke refused the Emperor's newfound dark side power, and so Palpatine used his deadly Force lightning to attack the young Jedi."

        Next are you going to suggest that the Anakin Skywalker from Phantom Menace isn't the same Anakin Skywalker who became Darth Vader?!

        • What are you talking about? Even the slightest Star Wars fan knows that the Emperor's name was Palpatine. Are you saying that they are different people!?

          No, not at all. What I'm saying is that it isn't mentioned in the movie, and thus the fact that Palpatine == Emperor would not be obvious to people who don't take their Star Wars experience beyond the movies (which, granted, doesn't include many /.ers, but is quite a few people nonetheless).

          The above poster was chastising people for not remembering Return of the Jedi well enough to remember that the Emperor's name was Palpatine, when in fact that's not mentioned in the trilogy.

    • When I went to see Phantom Menace for the second time, my friends I saw the movie with didn't know Palpatine was the Emperor. They were surprised when I mentioned it in passing.

      I only knew because I had picked it up through fanboy channels around the time Jedi came out.

      Jon Acheson

  • Harry liked Episode I, too. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nobodyman ( 90587 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @11:55AM (#3181045) Homepage

    Not to say that it's going to be bad, but let's put it all in perspective. True, Harry Knowles says that Episode II is great. But keep in mind that He said the same thing about Episode I.

    What's worse, he likes Jar-Jar too. In quoting from his review of Episode I, "Meesa luvs him!".

    So you can put me in the "I'll believe it when I see it" camp as well.

  • confirmed (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    A co-worker of mine who's seen the film twice at Skywalker Ranch said the reviewer must have seen the film because it's very accurate.
  • For those who didnt notice before, AICN had a review of the most recently released trailer a good while before it was ever aired on TV. While then i was very skeptical, once the trailer finally aired and i saw it for myself. AICN was right on the money, and even included word for word quotations that appeared in the trailer.

    While that doesnt exactly confirm the SW2 review to be accurate, it surely shows that their news about SW2 has been accurate so far. And Im pretty confident that they wouldnt post made up stuff concerning star wars.
  • unless you are going to kiss the ass of the studio.

    Don't you wonder why all of these no-name critics that you see on TV trailers get to review movies before Roger Ebert?

    SW
  • Is it just me or are Knowles' reviews truly bizarre?

    I know he's a real cheerleader for film, and that's great. But after reading his review of Blade 2, I'm sure not sure what to think of Knowles.

    I mean, I'm all for enthusiasm. That's fine. And I know he's somewhat of a celebrity -- he's got a new book out, appeared a couple times with Ebert on Ebert's show -- but his reviews are repulsive in a way that sorta defies any explanation.

    But not all his reviews of repulsive. Blade 2 maybe is the oddball. And I'm not sure even why the Blade 2 review bothers me so much. After all, it's sorta the power of the everyman-reviewer-on-the-internet encapsulated.

    But there's something sorta off-putting about Knowles. Like he's a bit *too* enthusiastic -- and oftentimes about the weirdest things.

    More power to him, I guess. No one is forcing me to read the reviews, right?

    I guess they're not really reviews. That's the part that gets me. Maybe I'm taking them too seriously. I just gotta chill, read it, and roll with it. But they sorta expose stuff that sorta makes you scratch your head (or, as Harry might say, your ass) and say, "Hmmmmmm...."

    *shrug*

  • David Brin's Theory (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DavidBrown ( 177261 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @01:43PM (#3181654) Journal
    This discussion reminds me of David Brin's theory that Anakin "bringing balance to the force" is a means of defeating the two great evils terrorizing the Galaxy: The Sith and The Jedi Order. Essentially, the Jedi are elitist fascists that disrespect the inferior populace as much as the Sith - it's just that they have an attitude of nobliese oblige rather and aspirations of exploitation.

    I hope this is developed, because in this context, Darth Vader is a hero - defeating both the Palpatine and Yoda and replacing the corrupt Jedi Order (I wonder if these celibates have as much problems as the Catholic Priesthood?) with something that's a bit more humanistic.

    Perhaps in this context the Jedi Science of mitocholorians (sp?) is just another example of their internal corruption - they should be training everyone in the use of the force who show potential, and not attempting to exclude people like young Anakin who was considered too old to begin training.

    • Re:David Brin's Theory (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Spencerian ( 465343 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @03:08PM (#3182205) Homepage Journal
      You hit the nail right on the head.

      The elitist (yet still cool!) Jedi can't read into their own prophesies. Someone else (probably from Space.com's "Phantom Heresies" series got this idea published earlier, but I'll repeat here for fun.

      The Jedi prophesy that the Chosen One would "bring balance to the Force" works, but as the Jedi discover, not in their favor. The Force doesn't need the Jedi or Sith--they need it more. The Chosen One creates the balance by DESTROYING some 10,000 Jedi and apprentices, leaving only one master and one apprentice on each side (Emperor/Vader, and Yoda/Obi-Wan).

      The reason that these Force users are around also has something to do with their use of foretelling through the Force. Most Jedi, like Qui-Gon, probably do the "keep your mind on the here and now" thing. That philosophy ultimately gets them killed. Yoda and Obi-Wan can SEE the end coming--and take measures for another day. They can even see their demise, more or less, as Obi-Wan predicted to Luke before sacrificing himself to keep Vader from hindering Luke's first Death Star escape.

      The Emperor and Vader use the same talent, but it seems that mucking with the Dark Side doesn't give you the clarity that the Jedi had--otherwise, both Palpatine and Vader would have gotten a vague clue that they were about to part ways the Hard Way.

      The Jedi have survived as stoics (like the Vulcans of Star Trek fame). They know that emotion taints the use of the Force. That's why they really should have left Anakin alone, but their curiosity got them killed.

      Yep, ultimately, Anakin is a hero--he was the ONLY person capable of taking out the Emperor, who was more powerful than anyone except Vader. The Emperor knew this and subjugated Anakin to prevent what he ultimately did--kill the Emperor.

      Why must Anakin become a Sith? It was the only way to get close enough to the Emperor.
      • Most Jedi, like Qui-Gon, probably do the "keep your mind on the here and now" thing. That philosophy ultimately gets them killed. Yoda and Obi-Wan can SEE the end coming--and take measures for another day. They can even see their demise, more or less, as Obi-Wan predicted to Luke before sacrificing himself to keep Vader from hindering Luke's first Death Star escape.

        Nice theory, but really Obi-Wan sacrificed himself to Vader because Sir Alec Guiness stoutly refused to appear in a sequel...

        I will stop punishing you now.
        • Nice theory, but really Obi-Wan sacrificed himself to Vader because Sir Alec Guiness stoutly refused to appear in a sequel...

          OK, so who played the ghost of Obi-Wan Kenobi in ESB & ROTJ?

  • I can't read the review right now, I guess Slashdot killed the server heh. I just wanted to mention that the effects aren't done yet. If Ep1 was any indication, they'll be working on effects up until 3 weeks before the launch of the movie. If that's the case, then the reviewer likely saw an 'animatic version' of the movie, without everything in place. Normally this would be a good sign, except Lucas is the kind of guy to keep tweaking the movie in post production.

    I'll give you an example, long after the principal photography was done, Lucas decided to add a line for C3PO. They had an artist digitally recreate the left side of the picture so it could scroll over to the right, because 3PO wasn't originally in the shot. Then they had to composite C3PO in via bluescreen. All so he could say this very important, plot pivotal line "You'll never get me onto one of those starships."

    In other words, Lucas still has time to change it. A tweak here and a tweak there could potentially damage the movie. On the other hand, though, this technique could be used to improve the movie too. Who knows... In any case, as long as the movie has time to evolve, I wouldn't back any reviews of it right now.


  • Harry is easily manipulated by the publicists. his ability to objectively review films equals his grasp of english grammar.


    anytime a movie needs good buzz or hype from a reviewer with 'street cred', the hollywood publicists will throw some bone to H. Knowles. they'll invite him to some party to hang out with the stars of the film. sometimes they'll fly him to the premiere (Godzilla 2k, that KISS movie a couple years ago) and lavish him with attention and compliments.

    who is Harry but a loser that lives with his dad and is so fat that he has to walk with a cane and SMELLS REALLY BAD? in the face of all this ego-massaging he gets, can you actually expect him to pan a film? do you think he'll say, "thank you for telling me i'm so cool ms. jolie [imdb.com]. i'm afraid i'm giving tomb raider a thumbs-down"??
  • I for one think he did see the flick. I don't know much about Harry, but he's developed quite a following by his fellow overly excited armchair movie buffs. Being the 'experts' that they are, I highly doubt any of them would let this kind of hoax by without leaving his site in droves.

    My guess is that this was orchestrated by the studios to get those 'opinion leaders' disappointed by Ep 1 excited about Ep 2. Most of the nutjobs that talk about movies all day long probably flock to his site and participate in the forums, so they figure a positive review by Harry is good enough to get the word of mouth hype machine moving. Any entry level PR class teaches this tactic to get people talking about a particular issue, starting with the opinion leaders.

    There is also a distinct possibility that Harry is in fact on the payroll of the movie makers. We've heard about the studios creating a number of 'fan sites' to build up momentum for various flicks, so we should at least entertain the idea that Harry is a more permanent shadow marketing tactic. In the end a bulk of the ads on his site are from the studios, so they are paying him one way or the other :).

    If there was a legititmate 'leaked' version of the film (i.e. not an orchestrated leak), there'd be a VCD traveling throughout the vast expanse of cyberspace this morning. This sort of stuff doesn't happen 'by accident.' George Lucas had to approve this or it wouldn't have happened.

  • Prrff! (Score:5, Funny)

    by MouseR ( 3264 ) on Monday March 18, 2002 @02:41PM (#3182030) Homepage
    This guys says he's seen a rough cut of episode 2.

    Big deal.

    I've seen final cuts of episode 4, 5 and 6!

    And guess what? (SPOILER ALERT:) Vador is Luke's father!!

  • Leaked...? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Actually, the initial preview copy for investors and market tests has been 'in the can' for over a month. It's not the final cut, but all the effects and scenes are completed, music and voice overs done, and final rough cut made.

    As to the review... well, who knows. I don't like the guy much, though he certainly has done me no wrong. I hate it when people bash someone they don't know personally, as alot of you have done today. His review is to kneejerk and possibly full of spoilers if to be believed.

    If he saw it, it was probably a cut out for the Lucas company(s) trying to build some hype, which they have done judging from the two or three other early leak reviews on the web today.
  • I haven't read the review yet, but ever since Ep1, I've been pretty sure that Ep2 is going to be a stinker.

    "Gilligan! I mean, Anakin! How many times have I told you to stay away from the bzzzzzt! power couplings..."

    What more proof do you need?
  • When I read this review, I screamed like a little girl. I mean it was like Uncle Tony grabbed my pantied ass. I jumped about 12 feet up in the air and squealed.

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close