Discussion in 'Revenge of the Sith (Non-Spoilers)' started by Crimson_Jedi, Mar 17, 2002.
It wasn't anyone known outside of the Lucasfilm work environment.
Do you mean that no one at Lucasfilm KNEW the assailant?
Or that the assailant was not KNOWN by anyone OTHER than those inside Lucasfilm?
The "mole" worked at Lucasfilm.
Notice the past tense verb.
I didn't see anyone mention it in here, so I thought I would, even though it's on the TF.N. This (the leak/review) will be discussed on the show Techlive which is on TechTV @ 9pm tonight, if anyone's interested and perhaps didn't check out the news on TF.N main recently.
`if anyone's interested and perhaps didn't check out the news on TF.N main recently.'
Can't see any story on TF.N main page though.
hmmm, well either way, I just watched Techlive and didn't see anything about it. ?
Here's the link to the story anyway:
TechTV Talks to AICN
Thanks for the link.
No problem. If anyone cares to see if I missed it or what, it repeats @ 12am (Eastern time).
If Knowles saw AOTC, it's because LUCAS FILM allowed it to happen.
(and I like the strategy)
*looks at everyone saying its a marketing scheme*
*looks at everyone who thinks Harry Knowles is an influential Hollywood icon*
Right. If George Lucas stooped THAT low to get good word spread on his film, I'll definetly re-consider my Star Wars fanboy-ism. That would be the worst mistake Lucas ever makes. Jar Jar is a golden idea compared to this utter nonsense.
I SO hope it isn't true. For Gods' sake, please don't be true...and Knowles? An influential movie critic?
I so wish I could explain how hard I laugh when I think of that. Just go read his Blade II review if you want to know what I mean.
Lucas...please don't even do this to us...here you have made possibly the best Star Wars movie- maybe. We'll have to see. But WHY do this as a marketing ploy? It's a SW movie! Like it NEEDS anymore hype! When April 23rd rolls around, the world will be bouncing off the walls to see this film. You don't need to let an influential movie critic named Harry Knowles, with his poofy red hair and a beard that could choke an elephant, to review a movie and give it good praise to get people excited.
Just tell them the title starts with Star Wars. They'll go see it. No matter how bad everyone hated The Phantom Menace, they WILL go see Episode II, if only to disocver if Lucas has caught back up with himself or not, if anything.
*hopes this isn't a marketing plot*
And what if its a fake review? What if this movie totally sucks? (which it won't) But I'm saying what if it DOES and Knowles has just wrote this SPARKLING review...I really bet he'll be considered a marvelous critic.
For a better explanation, check out my SIGNATURE.
TF.N said there is another rought-cut review
at salon.com ?
But I can't find it ,did they remove it?
If they do/did, how many rough cuts are flying around?
I thought that salon.com did a piece on Harry Knowles.
>> I SO hope it isn't true. For Gods' sake, please don't be true...and Knowles? An influential movie critic?<<
Like it or not, he is a major contributing factor of internet buzz, which typically influences advanced word of mouth off-line as well. AICN may be past it's prime (1997 when it helped trash Batman & Robin for months ahead of time and championed Titanic, whom many people were discounting and bashing due to it's 6 month delay, extended trailer and monster budget, and eventually kept the buzz positive on the film and silenced the naysayers before the film's release) but it's influence is still felt in the after effects of that era. It's also known to be brutal on films (depending on the revewer) when deserved. TPM was greeted positively by Knowles, so-so by Moriarty and torn a new one by Hallenbeck. Not to mention the silly talk-backers.
IF this was in fact a Lucasfilm plant and not a leak, then they could very well be trying to remove the trepidation in many movie geeks left by the so-so reflection of TPM..in the end it's probably just trying to boost the opening weekend box office...trying to convince people to see it now sineatd of later really...thats just my interpretation though.
>>I so wish I could explain how hard I laugh when I think of that. Just go read his Blade II review if you want to know what I mean.<<
Indeed one of the funniest pieces he's ever written.
I asked a friend who works at Lucasfilm marketing and she said that if it was an intentional plant by LFL, it didn't come from the marketing dept, as they don't even have a full copy of the film yet.
Soo...this means it was either a true security leak or a plant that came from really high up the LFL ladder, above Lynne Hale, which didn't result from the marketing deptartment.
Obviously, we probably won't ever know the truth unless LFL ever admits to doing so on purpose.
That review contains little (or even none, because I am not up to all spoilers that are around) new spoilers compared to the ones I've seen in this site. I think he forged all this, but thats just my opinion.
2ndQuest, I shudder because well, you are right. He is influential.
However, I feel sorry for those individuals influenced by him.
I mean- hardly any of his reviews are good. If he likes a movie, he sits there and tells you that you will love it better than this or that movie, you will "quiver, shake, and scream" like he said in the AOTC review- he never EVER centers on why it's a good/bad movie.
And if he HATES a film, he sits there and tears it to shreds on why he hated it. He never explains WHY he hates it.
This goes for a man named Roger Ebert too.
I know the world hated Episode I, but I mean- he gave it a good review. When I realized that Ebert got a bit of my credibility for scoring Episode I really high, he goes and gives the same score for Tomb Raider and Home Alone 3.
Now THAT is pathetic.
Ebert and Harry Knowles are THE two worst critics ever. Now, Harry usually agress with everything I do, but I'm saying that he just can't write reviews at all.
He show how much he likes/dislikes a film, but he sure does do a lousy job on it.
I actually tend to like both Harry's and Ebert's reviews...mainly because I usually agree with them 90% of the time.
Much better than the evil SOB known as Roeper and my local critics who would give no stars to Resident Evil yet give 2 stars to 13 Ghosts and Jeepers Creepers, films which sucked 50 billion times worse than RE.
I just wanted to correct a typo from one of my previous posts from a couple days ago that i just realized is barely comprehensible..
"trying to convince people to see it now sineatd of later really"
"trying to convince people to see it now instead of later really"
"TPM was greeted positively by Knowles, so-so by Moriarty and torn a new one by Hallenbeck. Not to mention the silly talk-backers. "
That's true. Hallenbeck's was one of the worst reviews I've ever seen. He actually said "Godzilla is looking pretty good now"!
Oh, I'm not supposed to be in here anymore, am I?
<runs away from spoilers>