Transterrestrial Musings  

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay

Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)
The Ombudsgod
Cut On The Bias (Susanna Cornett)
Joanne Jacobs

Site designed by

Powered by
Movable Type
Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« A Painful End | Main | Wrong War »

No Consensus

John Podhoretz says that the Revenge of the Sith, well, sux. But here's a much different (and longer) opinion, with lots of spoilers, for those who care about such things.

I have trouble worrying about spoilers for a movie like this. I mean, even someone with the minimal mental acuity of Jar Jar Binks ought to be able to intelligently interpolate between movies 2 and 4, such that the major plot points are obvious. The only question is how well Lucas pulls them all off.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 10, 2005 10:08 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference this post from Transterrestrial Musings.

I agree about the spoilers inasmuch as everyone has to know that Anakin becomes Darth Vader by the end of the movie (it's in every preview, too). Kinda like we knew that some time between the end of Ep. 1 and the end of Ep 3, Anakin would lose one of his hands (happened in Ep. 2).

Any spoilers I can think of aren't plot points, but, as you mentioned, the details about how those plots are fleshed out. That's the only way that the movie can hope to bring in money, since everyone knows how it ends. Any spoilers about those details would be a little unwelcomed, IMHO.

Posted by John Breen III at May 10, 2005 11:11 AM

Thanks for the spoiler warning Rand. I appreciate it.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at May 10, 2005 11:46 AM

I've never quite understood the problem with spoilers (must be something to do with my personality type, INTJ.) As Rand points out, by interpolation, episode 3 must have certain plot points. All other movies can be extrapolated... something from the multitude of all possibilities must occur and the most likely can usually be determined before the opening credits have finished.

Surprise of course is fun, but I find that I enjoy a good movie the tenth time more than I did the first. It may be that I'm just strange?

The Matrix, for instance, is a movie crying to be rewritten. In the multiverse (a ridiculous attempt by physicists to deny the existance of God) I can imagine some truly great plot diversions.

btw, all spelling and grammer errors are simply the result of drifting between quantum states... I'm actually perfect in my own little universe. ;)

Posted by ken anthony at May 10, 2005 01:20 PM

Given that the last time I checked (some time in the early 80's) I was an INTJ too (and my attitudes on spoilers haven't changed since then), we must look elsewhere for the excuse. In my case, it really does lower the enjoyment of the film, if I know (or have a good idea) of what's going to happen next. I rarely watch a movie again in a short period of time.

The Matrix, for instance, is a movie crying to be rewritten. In the multiverse (a ridiculous attempt by physicists to deny the existance of God) I can imagine some truly great plot diversions.

I sense that this paragraph resides in a different reality from myself. :-) While the Matrix is probably a decent example due to the overall complexity of the film, I still find it hard to concentrate on a film where I've seen so much of it before.

And what's this about the "multiverse"? Not a standard physics concept and even if it were, how does this result in a feeble attempt to "deny" the existence of a god or gods? I am confused.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at May 11, 2005 04:02 PM

I think having been overexposed in my youth to Hollywood output, I may have adapted out of necessity to become more spoiler-tolerant simply because it got to be excruciatingly rare for anything out of Hollywood to surprise me.

Then I got older and the memory started to go, and now spoilers don't bother me in the least. Especially if I have no intention of dropping $40 so my wife and I can see the movie in a theater, each with a modest handful of snacks and a soda.

Posted by McGehee at May 12, 2005 01:59 PM

Karl, the long version is here.

The many worlds theory is pretty standard in quantum physics. It was popularized in sliders and quantum leap.

Posted by ken anthony at May 15, 2005 10:06 PM

Post a comment

Email Address: